Gagger and subscribe to Bellarmine who maintaine that Peters faith did not faile auoid it if you can I answer and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too auoide you it if you can for I say no more then what I haue learned of her and so must you also auoid it if you can for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth and teach what it teacheth in whose faith and confession you hope to liue and dye Appeale p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed you haue hunted all this while and couered your nets close to catch your mother and your selfe in the pitfall I will doe you that fauour as to let you and the Church of England loose I will stand by it my selfe and will professe Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe which I doe thus The act of faith is either eliciate or imperate The first is the act of the soule onely remaining in it selfe not knowne to man which wee call beleeuing The second is wrought by the body also and commeth to the knowledge of men as when a man doth professe by his tongue to giue credit and trust vnto Christ Peter lost not his faith in the first kind but in the second I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ and trusted vnto and relyed vpon him as such euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus I subscribe to them and that vpon good reason for Peter had long beleeued on Christ and had now no cause to change that beleefe therefore wee may not say he did change it vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it which hath not a word of any such thing but looke better on your bookes and you shall find Bellarmine saith Peter lost his charity but not his faith because he was Pastor ouer the whole Church and was to teach it the true faith de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine nor my sentence so good Popery as M. Mountagu hath deliuered contrary to his vniust challenge Appeale pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith to establish his owne implyed Gagg pag. 163. which is on this wise Faith is either in the end or the act But this distinction I feare not because end and act are not parts of faith neither as specialls to the generall nor as constitutiue parts making a constituted whole besides what he saith of the end of faith is a riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due forme and answer thereunto Thus then it lyeth If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger who say that Peter lost not his faith But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine c. where he saith Peter lost not his faith for that is Popery Therefore you must not deny that Peter lost his habit of grace I answer This whole argument is a meere caption and no proofe it supposeth that the losse of the habit of grace is denyed to Peter onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely But I will take it as it lyeth and answer to it The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer which is this I grant the assumption I promise you I am and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith as M. Mountagu and further too For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuersies in faith Yet you get nothing by it for the consequence of your proposition is naught I may say the first and not the second in the sense wherein they take it for they say he lost not his faith neither in the habit nor act by a speciall prouidence and peculiar dispensation vpon the reason and for the end as is aforesaid n o 25. but I say hee lost it not neither in habit nor act by that prouidence and dispensation which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the habit of grace who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace because the habit of grace consisteth in faith hope and charitie Vnto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary They say all men lose their faith when they lose the habit of grace onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed no 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare and we find the snare is broken and the game is escaped and with it his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads Appeale pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe if it be true of any but he may bee pardoned that fault his heart was so full of anger and his pen of railing that he had no leasure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the
Priests and Iesuits were not common Barretters of Christendome for priuate ends this controuersie on foot touching the reall presence might cease Gagg p. 251. They that in the point of reall presence doe make a difference betweene vs and the Papists were bred vp by the deuill in a faction and by him brought vp in a faction and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Gagg p. 253. and Appeale p. 291. The onely difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours is about the manner Appeale p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ Gagg p. 256. 255. Namely whether by transubstantiation or not 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation which wee condemne Gagg p. 252. And in this viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome and ours blaming them for this p. 252. and for nothing else and reprouing their proofes because they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation Gagg p. 252. and 254. Out of which wee may conclude Mr Mountagu beleeueth as the Councell of Trent hath decreed touching the reall presence and the doctrine of it is his doctrine so as what the Councell saith of reseruing carying about and worshipping of the Sacrament must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu because the first doth necessarily inferre the second If Christ be really present then the sacrament must bee so reserued caryed worshipped And so much for the second branch If this be true then Mr Mountagu doth not dissent from the Church of England in the point of reall presence To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England he telleth vs Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England That is the Church of England agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after If that be so then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England But all the doubt will be how he will proue that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence His proofe such as it is I find set downe Appeale p. 289. c. and may be concluded in this forme Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops Bilson Andrewes Morton by Protestants Fortunatus Caluin Beza Sadael is the doctrine of the Church of England But the faith of the Church of Rome touching the reall presence is taught by these c. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence is the doctrine of the Church of England This forme of disputing may not bee excepted against because all his allegations in the place quoted will be to no purpose if he doth not thus dispute for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption or can be of no vse at this time To the proposition I answer two things First The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes authorised publikely for that end and subscribed vnto as such But these mens writings are not such For no statute law or ordinance haue ratified them and commanded subscription vnto them as such Therefore your proposition is false Secondly your owne words are these Appeale p. 58. and 59. Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat as if hee were the father and founder of our faith as if our beleefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue and absolutely to bee taught after his institutions shew me good warrant for it and I yeeld This is impossible therefore your proposition is false euen by your owne sentence his owne pen giueth Iudgement against his proposition as false that being false this reason cannot be good although his assumption were neuer so true The assumption is vtterly false and I doe admire that shame did not with-hold him from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence seeing that Bellarmine in his fiâ—st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin and Beza principall opposers thereunto and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort against Caluin and forgetteth him not in no one passage of his disputations in this point The words of the Bishops euen as he hath alleadged them are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith as hee that readeth them will presently iudge I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption Two of them are yet liuing who will I doubt not by liuely voyce disclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent and their consent thereto touching the reall presence and so fully refute his assumption as false He inferreth further from hence on this wise If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth as it is indeed I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you I answer this inference presumes too farre and comes too late I may rather inferre contrariwise If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England as indeed it is not my answer hath shewed it in part and I will shew it to the full hereafter then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith to be punished as such according to law in that case prouided I finde in his Gagge page 250. he writeth thus Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith expresly the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper And a few lines after he concludeth in these words The Protestant is as reall and substantiall as any Papist He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former the meaning whereof is this Protestants acknowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse then Papists What his intent was is best knowne to himselfe It was needfull for mee to propound it and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell who hath already made it for mee in his reply vnto Hardings answere Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these Christs body and blood indeed and verily is giuen vnto vs that we verily eate it that wee verily drinke it In these words there is as much contained as Mr. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme But marke now what he denieth and answereth further for the explication thereof Yet we say not that Christs body is let downe from heauen or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament wee lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith wee eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood euen as verily as his body was verily broken and his blood verily
Rome cals voluntary workes workes of supererogation Artic. 14. So doth the Church of Rome as I haue shewed out of Bellarmine n o 1. Therefore the Church of England and the Church of Rome are ignorant and fantasticall 2 O Mr Mountagu who doe you make your selfe to be doe you know the faith of Rome better then your Mother nay better then your selfe you subscribed that Article and thereby professed those words of her to bee true is the other end of your tongue turned outwards that you now vnsay what you said then did you then know and now are ignorant But suppose you might make thus bold with your Mother and your selfe doe you thinke to beg all the learned in the Church of Rome for fooles that vnderstand not their owne faith but you would bee thought farre from this therefore your proposition is false in the same thoughts 3 The proposition doth suppose that Workes laid vp in store to satisfie for other mens offences called the treasure of the Church are the Papists workes of supererogation And so hee speaketh expresly Gagge page 103. 105. 106. 〈◊〉 this is a meere presumption without truth auouched barely vpon his owne word without tendring any proofe You must proue what you say or else you bring words of the wind Against you I proue thus 1 That which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others is not workes but the value and price of workes viz. satisfaction Bellarm. de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 2. 1 Propos 4 Propos cap. 3. 1 Propos Therefore that which is laid vp in store to satisfie for others cannot be their works of supererogation But let vs suppose that the voluntary workes themselues be so laid vp yet can they not therefore be their works of supererogation and thus I shew it If voluntary workes laid vp in the treasury of the Church be therefore their works of supererogation then works done according to Moses Law are also their works of supererogation for the satisfaction arising froÌ„ them is also laid vp in the treasury of the Church to satisfie for other as Bellarmine teacheth de Indulg lib. 1. c. 4. Respondeo non est But that works done according to the Morall Law are not their works of supererogation I take as granted Of his agreement or disagreement with the church of England in the point of voluntary works you need not make a question for if you will beleeue him The Church of England Hath no doctrine against Euangelicall counsels Gag page 103. For now voluntary works and euangelicall counsells are the same as wee haue heard out of Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 1. cap. 7. Quantum ad c. and as himselfe doth expound it out of Philastrius and Nazianzen Gag p. 10. But this imputation is an vntruth so â—oule that it deserueth no other answer but his owne words Blush for shame Gagg p. 250. For the Church of England saith expresly Voluntarie workes besides ouer and aboue Gods commandements cannot be taught Arti. 14. And further it saith Man cannot for Gods sake doe more then of bounden duty is required which is as much as if it had said There be no voluntary workes at all But it may be he will say yee doe him wrong hee speaketh not absolutely but so farre as he knoweth I answer Those are his words indeed but marke the sense those words seeme to be rather a confirmation then a limitation of his deniall for is it credible that he could not read this Article Or that hee did not know 1. That the Church of England had made this Article 2. Or that the Church meant to deny those workes indeed which it doth deny in words Or that this Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Surely none of these may bee conceiued Therefore we may conclude as a thing very probable that his intent was to auouch that denyall vpon his owne knowledge Now the Iudgement of our Church and of Master Mountagu in the point of voluntary workes is fully known that they are contradictory it may be concluded he dissenteth from the Church of England in the point of voluntary workes But before I passe from it one thing is worthy observation viz. Mr. Mountagu hath subscribed contradictories He subscribed the Article that saith there is no voluntary workes and he subscribed that there is voluntary works Gagg p. 103. c. Can any man tell what this man would doe to bee Chiefe muftie I doubt himself cannot But pardoÌ„ him his ends were contrary He must subscribe the Article or misse aduancement He must subscribe the other or be no reconciler He meant to attaine both Hee hath gotteÌ„ the first he professeth himself for the second Appeale pag. 292. He hath put hard for it in both his bookes therefore it was reason he should subscribe on both sides In the first he subscribed to what protestants are in the second to what they ought to be I should now come to dispute the question whether A man may doe voluntary workes Wherein I might first proue the negatiue but it seemeth better to resolue with M. Mountagu Appeale pag 218 That it would be lost labour to seeeke or goe about to beetle it into his braines because he saith Appeale pag. 218. All antiquity is of opinion there are Euangelicall counsels And hee resolueth Appeale pag. 224. to ioyne in opinion with them And he giues this reason for it Appeale p. 240. I am tyed not to preach or publish otherwise according to the Cannons prescribed vnto Ministers in such cases Anno 1571. Knowing it to be the resolued doctrine of antiquitie as I doe I am not excusable if I transgresse the Cannons But notwithstanding because hee may change his mind therefore I will proceed and proue There be no voluntary workes My first argument shall be the words of the Article already alleadged n o 6. c. Whose authoritie onely ought to be sufficient to Mr. Mountagu because hee hath subscribed those words of the Article as true and hath vowed to forsake all others and follow his mother the Church of England Appeale pag. 183. And the rather because those words doe so plainely and fully deny voluntary workes My second argument shall bee the same which I find in the Article on this sort to be framed Whosoeuer teacheth voluntary workes they be proud arrogant and impious For saith the Article Voluntary workes cannot be taught without pride arrogancy and impietie But no man may be proud arrogant and impious Therefore voluntary workes may not be taught It may be obiected that the first part of this reason is extended too far because it reacheth vnto antiquitie And also it doth passe too hard a sentence vpon such as teach voluntarie workes I answer both parts of this obiection be false and the respect we owe vnto the first composers and confirmers of that Article doth bind vs to thinke so for they were able to drop Fathers with M. Mountagu and gouerne their passions
question but the will of intention onely man may be predestinated in the will of intention before he hath an actuall being for God may so decree when man is but in possibility to be as Suarez well obserueth AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOR In this last branch our Church assigneth the end of Predestination the manner how it floweth from the same The end is signified by these words made vnto honour by honor is signified both the glory honor giuen vnto God by declaring his attributes as prouidence and loue vnto the reasonable creature as also the honour which the creature receiueth from God in beholding him face to face wherein the true and proper nature of blessednesse consisteth That being the supreame this the next end of Predestination And that our Church doth meane thus there is no cause of doubt because it agrees well with the present words and the thing it selfe It openeth the manner how the one floweth from the other by saying as vessels made to honour wherein the Predestinate are likened vnto vessels that receiue honour vnto themselues and are instruments in honourable offices vnto God In saying as vessels our Church sheweth that this end issueth from the act of Predestination immediately and of the thing it selfe There is nothing in man added vnto the diuine will of Predestination to make it fit and apt for these effects for such is the condition of a vessell it cannot say to the Potter thou hadst sufficient reason out of my selfe why thou shouldest make mee a vessel vnto honor neither can it challenge the Potter for iniury vnto it if he doth make it a vessell not vnto honour Lastly our Church saith the Predestinate are made vnto honour to wit by Predestination wherby efficiency of euery kinde is attributed vnto Gods will no part of this honour is yeelded vnto the Predestinate himselfe for then it must haue diuided the act of making to honour betweene God and the Predestinate but this it doth not but giueth that act onely to Gods will of Predestination And thus haue I gone ouer the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it doth appeare that our Church opposeth Mr. Mountagu his Predestination so fully as nothing more can be required Mr. Mountagu saith 1 Glory onely is decreed by Predestination 2 Man was in perdition before he was Predestinate 3 Man had finall grace before he was predestinate 4 Mans finall grace moued God to predestinate him Our Church saith 1 Finall grace and glory is appointed to man by Predestination 2 Man was Predestinate before his actuall being was decreed 3 Predestination is of Gods will the reason thereof is not from man nor knowne to vs. Notwithstanding this proofe hee will make you beleeue that our Church opposeth this Doctrine of Predestination Hee bringeth his first reason for that purpose Appeale page 59. thus to be concluded That which is opposed by many of the learned and most conformable in the Church of England that is opposed by the Church of England But this sentence Predestination is without relation to faith c. is opposed c. Therefore this sentence c. is opposed by the Church of England I answer I will speake to the point in question and let the rest passe The proposition or first sentence of this reason is false by his owne rule Appeale page 48. and 49. where he saith The presumptions of seruants are not the Lords directions euery one that Prateth Readeth Lectureth Preacheth or Professeth must not looke to haue his discourses taken as the dictates or Doctrines of our Church yes saith Mr. Mountagu page 59. If they be of the learned and most conformable in our Church nay saith Mr. Mountagu pag. 49. Our Mother hath sufficiently made knowne her minde in Bookes that are publike promulgated authorised and subscribed these are those passages at which the lisping Ephramites are to be tryed Some that be learned in our Church doth oppose that sentence and so farre I grant the assumption but their number exceeds not If Mr. Mountagu conceiueth otherwise hee is one of the Duke of Burgundies spies that taketh a field of Thistles for an army of Pikes page 320 and so the assumption is false that speaketh of many Those some doe oppose indeed but priuately and in a corner Let him shew where euer that sentence was opposed in Print or in publike place without controle therefore their opposing is not our Churches opposing His next reason is thus Appeale page 59. 73. If our Church it selfe doth teach that a man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God then it opposeth that Doctrine of Predestination But our Church doth so teach directly and in expresse words I answer He makes this matter like a Pedlers Horse that is acquainted with euery doore a Knight of the Post to depose in euery cause In this cause his witnesse is false his Pedlers ware will not sell Our Church doth not so teach Mr. Mountagu the Gagger being witnesse saith expresly Our Church hath left it vndecided and at liberty p. 158. and 171. and I haue proued our Church doth not teach it Chap. 11. 12. It is bold importunity to vrge that for true which himselfe denieth to be true but better that then nothing It may perhaps be beleeued by some where silence is a sentence of guiltinesse He telleth vs further page 59. Our Church hath gone on in these high points in great wisedome not concluding vpon Gods secrets I answer I grant thus much Let him goe on in the words of our Church and sticke to them and it sufficeth but what he would inferre from hence I know not I am sure he may inferre thus Therefore himselfe in dissenting from our Church hath not done wisely His third argument I finde Appeale page 72. which is to this effect That which was stiled against the Articles of Lambeth a desperate Doctrine at the Conference at Hampton Court before his Maiesty without reproofe or taxation of any is not the Doctrine of the Church of England But this Doctrine of Predestination was so stiled viz. by Doctor Bancroft c. without reproofe of any I answer the proposition is as probably false as true such a fault might be let passe for diuers reasons of state and obseruance The assumption is a manifest vntruth The Booke that reporteth that Conference will shew it for it reporteth that speech of Bishop Baneroft page 29. in these words Many in these dayes neglecting holinesse of life presuming too much of persisting of grace laying all their religion vpon Predestination If I shall be saued I shall be saued which he termed a desperate Doctrine Here is not a word of Mr. Mountagues tale According to him the Doctor saith thus this sentence Predestination is without relation to mans faith Is a desperate Doctrine According to the Booke the Doctor saith this sentence The Predestinate may neglect holinesse of life because if he shall be saued he shall be saued
A DANGEROVS PLOT DISCOVERED BY A DISCOVRSE Wherein is proved That Mr RICHARD MOVNTAGVE in his two Bookes the one called A new Gagg the other A iust Appeale Laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome and Arminius vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England A Worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue and desire to escape errour The Reader shall finde 1. A Catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the Epistle to the Reader 2. A demonstration of the danger of them cap. 21. num 7. c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the Chapters contained in this Booke IEREM 5. 31. The Prophets prophecie lyes what will you then doe in the end thereof The sonne of the hand-maid shall not inherit with the sonne of the free Woman LONDON Printed for Nicholas Bourne at the Exchange 1626. TO THE HIGH AND HONORABLE COVRT Of PARLIAMENT The humble supplication of the Author WHereas Mr Richard Mountague hath written two Bookes the one called A new Gagge the other A iust Appeale Which many esteemed as dangerous vnto our Church and State I esteemed it my dutie to reade them and to satisfie my selfe in the poynt whether they were so faultie as was pretended or not When I had read and well considered of them I could not but resolue that they were in deed dangerous vnto our Church For that he endevoured by them to change our faith into the faith of Rome and Arminius Which deed I could not but detest because that faith of Rome and Arminius is false and erroneous And vpon that detestation I became an humble suter vnto the Lord God to preserue our faith in the puritie thereof seing he is the Author of truth and his eye-lids preserue pure knowledge Now out of the same affection I prostrate my selfe this Cause before your reverend honourable and graue Iudgements and high authoritie with all submission and fervent desire Craving That you will 1. take this Cause into your consideration 2. Preserue the faith of our Church in the puritie it hath had hitherto 3. Endevour to prevent the corrupting of it in time to come I doe most willingly confesse that I may seeme to some to deserue blame in that I doe thus presume to offer my selfe into your most honourable presence and Tribunall Yea I am ready to giue that judgement against my selfe when I consider the meannesse of my condition and the poore talent which I offer vnto you But none of those things could discourage me in this businesse when I consider 1. Your most honourable and fatherly care over this Church and State of which you are members receiving with all readinesse and mildnesse the complaints yea of the meanest suters 2. Your service herein will be acceptable to God for by his Law The Foxes must be taken that eate vp the Vines yea it is an honour beyond earthly honour to doe it for thereby a name is purchased excelling humane titles even the name to be called Good servants and faithfull vnto the Lord God and they are also admitted into their Maisters ioy Againe this office is most seemly for your most high and honourable Court because You are therefore called together by his sacred Maiestie our most gracious King That things amisse might be redressed And the redresse of evils in the Church and our faith is of all other most comely and gracefull for thereby the Word of God receiveth freer passage and mens salvation is furthered The doctrine of our Church doth call for your protection against all intruders even of it selfe though all men should hold their peace Because it deserveth protection in as much as it was penned and composed by most reverend learned and holy Authors Fathers of our Church It is in it selfe most agreeable vnto the divine and sacred Revelation yea wanting nothing any kind of wayes of a safe and fit expression of and direction vnto our Christian faith so as we may truly say the Church of England is not inferiour therein vnto any Church in the Christian world Lastly This cause does indeed in a speciall sort belong vnto you for you are possessed with it in part alreadie This doctrine of our Church received the authoritie it hath first from that most high and honourable Court whereof you are By it also it hath bin preserved in that state till this present time Wherefore I rest well assured That you will not impute my boldnesse vnto me Now I might alledge some reasons to moue you to vndertake the worke but I will not doe so For that would be very vnseemely and ill befitting For what man well advised would light a small and dimme candle to further the light of the Sunne in his greatest strength And this would be my case if I should moue you by reasons For you know more then I can write or speake Who would put him forward that is more ready to doe then any can be to aske And this is your case experience doth witnesse it In whom we see not the spirit of Iehu that was zealous for the Lord of Hosts but rather of the Lord of heaven and earth who is ready to heare before we call vpon him yea to call to vs when we are negligent to call vpon him And thus would you doe if it were fit for your place and authoritie so mindfull willing ready are you in Gods service and the good of your Countrey Wherfore I haue onely this to say Goe on For the Lord is with you We your Countrey-men true lovers of our Church and State are with you to helpe you with our prayers vnto God to render thanks vnto God and our gracious renowned Soveraigne and to you saying in the words once spoken by King David Blessed be God and blessed be You. And to giue his sacred Majesty and You the honour due vnto you saying Many of your Predecessors haue done well but You surmount them all Thus I commit You and your Labours vnto the protection and favour of the Almightie LONDON This first of Iune 1626. ¶ To the Reader ALthough I haue no delight in making a Preface for I see not any great need of it yet I here present thee with one because Custome calls for it In this Preface I will advise thee of some things even of such and no more as shall helpe thee to make the better vse of the ensuing Discourse which I will doe also with as much brevitie as I can First know That this Treatise was chiefly intended for my owne satisfaction but is now published for the benefit of others The manner of handling the poynts in it is scholasticall and it might be no other because the things themselues and the partie opposed require it Besides this course of writing is profitable for thee for thereby 1. The matters in question are layd before thee nakedly and as it were in both ends of the
16. The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may be set vp in Churches Respect is due and honour given Relatiuely vnto them They may be vsed for helps of pietie To represent the prototype Instruct the vnlearned renew remembrance cap. 15. p. 94. 95. 17. A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any Law of God cap. 17. p 107. These workes are left to a mans choyse They procure reward to him that doth them and he that doth them not is without danger of punishment therfore cap. 18. num 2. p. 109. They are to be found in Virginitie and wilfull Povertie cap. 18. num 12. p. 120. 18. Finall persevering in obedience is the instrumentall cause of mans salvation cap. 20. num 27. p. 161. 162. The poynts of the false Faith of Arminius doe follow 1. I Conceiue of predestinatiō that it is Gods act of drawing them out which tooke hold of mercy cap. 19. p. 126. 127. cap. 20. num 3. 4. num 7. p. 139. 2. Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that grace Man being drawne he runneth as his assistance his owne agilitie and disposition is cap. 7. p. 53. cap. 8. num 22. 23. The heads of every Chapter are as follow MAister Mountague hath corrupted the faith of our Church cap. 1. The point of the Iudge of Controversies propounded cap. 2. discussed cap. 3. The poynt of the Churches not erring cap. 4. The poynt of the Churches perpetuall visibilitie cap. 5. The Church of Rome is a true Church cap. 6. The poynt of Free-will propounded cap. 7. debated cap. 8. The poynt of Iustification propounded cap 9. argued cap. 10. The poynt of falling from grace propoūded c. 11 argued cap. 12. The poynt of Reall presence propoūded cap 13. debated cap. 14. The poynt of Images propounded cap. 15. discussed cap. 16. The poynt of Workes of Supererogation propounded cap. 17. disputed cap. 18. The poynt of Predestination propoūded cap. 19. debated cap. 20. The Conclusion of the whole claiming Master Mountague his promise cap. 21. CHAP. I. Maister Mountague hath corrupted the Faith of the Church of England THE whole Disputation following serveth to proue this sentence by shewing wherein and by what he hath corrupted it This sentence presumeth that the Church of England hath published her faith which will not be denied because the Records thereof cheifly the Booke of Articles are or may be in every mans hand That he hath corrupted it will easily be granted too if I shew that vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine of the Church of England and defence thereof he hath brought in the erronious faith of the Church of Rome and Arminius And this I will performe first by answering his generall plea to excuse himselfe therfrom in this Chapter and then by setting downe the particular points wherein and whereby he hath corrupted it in the rest of the Chapters following First he pleadeth not guiltie of both accusations of Arminianisme and Popery Appeale p. 9. I reply vnto him I will joyne issue with him herein and make it good that he is guiltie He would argue his innocency on this manner 1. I disavowed the name and title of Arminian for I will not pinne my beliefe vnto any mans sleeue I answere if you joyne in that faith whereof he was the author you cannot avoyd to beare his title no more then others that haue sided in the like case Every artist beareth the name of that art which he professeth but you joyne in faith with him as afterwards shall appeare therefore you must beare his title 2. He saith he never read word in Arminius p. 10. I answere this will not thrust off his title For of them that were called Arrians many thousands never read word in Arrius It is communion in his faith not his writings that procures that title He would proue himselfe innocent of the Popish faith on this manner I nor am nor haue beene nor intend to be a Papist of state or of Religion p. 111. I answer his thoughts may change and so he may be what he doth not now intend to be The liking of some points first is a good beginning and a fayre way to like all at last We doe not inquire what you are or intend to be but what you haue done Therefore this plea is nothing to the purpose He would proue he neither is nor meanes to be a Papist by two reasons the first is The originall grounds of Popery haue no warrant from revealed truth p. 111. The second is he hath handled them as few besides himselfe hath done in so exasperating a stile p. 110. I answer this proues the thing which is not in question therefore deserues not be answered but to them I say you haue left a dore open for the first to escape You say you are not tyed to your owne opinion Gagg p. 328. If your judgement change you are as ready for Popery and will judge it no lesse warranted by revealed truth then now you doe the contrary You tell vs of some that draw one way and looke another You may be one of them for any thing is done are so too in all likelihood For rayling at them doth not shew you had no favour to them because the contention of friends many times is the bitterest and odious rayling was the fittest curtaine to conceale your friendship to them where open friendship would presently haue beene detested If circumstances will argue your guiltinesse I can vrge you with some store 1. Your writing is crabbed and hardly intelligible full of raylings and debasing of others extolling vaunting of your selfe advancing the credit of Popish Writers debasing the reputation of many of precious accompt in all the Protestants Churches 2. You often times leaue the question between you and the Papist to quarrell with Protestants 3. You grant your Adversary many points of his faith and faine a difference where there is none 4. You drop in the Popish faith here some and there some as if you would but you are not willing to be seene If they were together every one would perceiue them being in sunder a wise man might be overtaken by them 5. You bring in points of speculation that will finde lesse opposition but being received will draw on matters of practice 6. You professe your selfe for reconciliation which can be vnderstood of none but with the church of Rome Appeale p. 292. Touching the matter it selfe thus he saith I call therin for tryall for it by God and my Countrey the Scriptures and the Church of England dare any ioyne Issue with me vpon this they dare not p. 9. I answer I dare and doe accept the Challenge And that the proceedings may be orderly I will set the doctrine of Mr. Mountague in the first place of the Church of Rome in the second and of the Church of England in the third Then I will shew his
pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this â—â—ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue caÌ„not erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the revealeâ— thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie
This being considered I say 1. First the distinction it selfe is naught No points of saith be accessory all are fundamentall in as much as the whole divine Revelation and every particular proposition thereof is the foundation of our salvation which is built therevpon And so saith the Homilie of reading the Scriptures 1. part where it calleth the Word of God the foundation wherevpon the wise builder doth build And the Apostle doth say no lesse when he saith We are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles c. Eph. 2. 20. And the thing it selfe doth fay the same for as much as there is no sentence in the divine Revelation but doth conduce to everlasting happinesse 2. His description of a fundamentall point of faith is of his own devising without warrant of the thing it selfe or any other Author He doth alledge Appeale p. 128. Bishop Morton for his Author thereof but falsely The Bishop even as he hath alledged him hath not one word of a fundamentall point of faith that hath any place in this question 3. The description as it lyeth is not intelligible how a foundation can be as essentiall to the thing built therevpon as the soule is to man passeth humane vnderstanding seing mans soule is the primary essence of man a foundation is but part of the matter whereof the building is made Againe what he meanes by beliefe needs a second explication there is nothing in his discourse that shews it 4. To what the points of faith be fundamentall he shewes not this therefore must be vnderstood because points of faith are fundamentall divers wayes 1. Some points are fundamentall to other some viz. this point There is a God is fundamentall to all other points of faith The like instance may be given in many other points wherin the primary are the foundations to the secondary points of faith 2. Points of faith are the foundations to our salvation 3. Points of faith are the foundation to the Church in as much as the Preaching of the pure Word of God therein doth serue vnto the being of a Church in the Iudgement of the Church of England Arti 19. He yeeldeth vs another description Appeale p. 116. in these words Points fundamentall be such as are immediate vnto faith He proues this as he did the former just never a whit We must beleeue it to be thus because he saith it We must guesse at his meaning for he doth not tell it vs. I thinke by immediate vnto faith he meanes such points as are obiected vnto faith first before others such as these viz. That there is a God is beleeved before all other points that concerne vertue and happinesse That there is a divine Revelation is beleeved before all other that concerne supernaturall holines and happines That there is a Mediator the man Christ is beleeved before all others that doe directly tend to salvation He being thus vnderstood his description is false for the primary or first obiecting vnto saith giues them not any thing like to the foundation of a building It is the succeeding Articles of faith which doth suppose the precedent that make the preceding to haue the likenesse of a foundation This Article That there is a God is a foundation to all others vniversally because all of them doe follow and suppose this 2. Some Articles are fundamentall which are not obiected first vnto faith for that there is a divine Revelation is not obiected first vnto faith yet it is the foundation vnto all other Articles of divine faith The like instance may be given of many other Articles which are foundations in the like sort which yet are obiected vnto faith many degrees after the first He doth explicate these fundamentalls by these properties viz. The knowledge and beliefe of them is absolutely necessary to salvation no man can be saved that doth not know and beleeue them That some points haue these properties I grant and namely those three I haue alreadie spoken of but that these properties are so peculiar vnto fundamentalls as that they belong vnto them all and vnto none but such which is the thing he intendeth he hath not proved nor can Besides this necessary order between some points of faith and heaven doth not make them fundamentall because that necessitie ariseth from the things themselues in respect that they are the entrance into the way to heaven 5. The application of the distinction is false He doth not conceiue the Church to be infallible in fundamentalls For if he did then also he doth giue the Church authoritie to Iudge in fundamentalls because that goeth with this But he doth not giue the Church that authoritie but denieth it vnto them Which I proue by his owne testimony 1. In his Appeale he disputeth p. 126. in this forme and in these words Councels are to determine things which be of doubtfull issue Fundamentalls are no such Out of which proposition and assumption this conclusion issueth Therefore Councels are not to determine points fundamentall 2. Out of his Gagg and Appeale I argue thus In Divinitie questions and controverted matters the Church is Iudge gagg p. 14. 28. Fundamentalls are not divinitie questions nor controverted matters For Fundamentalls be plainely delivered in Scripture Appeale p. 125. Therefore the Church is not Iudge in fundamentalls Although these things which I haue answered be sufficient I hope to take away the reason which he pleadeth to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie yet I will adde a reason from his owne testimony and the thing it selfe to proue that his agreement on this manner If he doth giue to the Church infallibility in points fundamentall all points of faith be fundamentall then he doth agree with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie For the Church of Rome doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in all points of faith But he doth giue infallibilitie to the Church in points fundamentall And all points of faith be fundamentall 1. To mans salvation 2. One to another 3. To the Church as shall be proved if need require Therefore he doth consent with the Church of Rome in the point of the Churches infallibilitie And thus much shall suffice touching the second point That he doth dissent from the Church of England the words on both sides set downe in the beginning of this Chapter doe sufficiently shew so that to beâ—â—ow further labour therein is indeed altogether lost yet notwithstanding that it may appeare to be so without all exception I will answer to those proofes which he alledgeth to excuse himselfe therefrom which are as followeth Appeale p. 128. The first whereof must be framed thus That possibilitie of erring which Arti 19. ascribeth to generall Councels is in things wherein they haue erred For It avou cheth that generall Councels haue erred But in fundamentalls they haue never erred because there is no such extant Therefore the Article doth not
submit themselues to the office of application and exposition of things already revealed this being inferior as the building that superior as the foundation that being performed without labour and industry this not without much of both that being an immediate continuation of Christs ministery this mediate none of which may be admitted without speciall direction in the Word of God wherein there is not a word whereon we may build any such conceit Moreover although this exception were not taken yet the proposition is false These words may be spoken to such as haue not that office this leading into all truth and that office of applying and expounding things revealed doth not necessarily goe together The word leading may signifie no more but an act of doing so much as is required on Gods part which hath not alwayes the event accordingly but oftentimes is frustrate by mans default 2. The words all truth may import no more but that whole which is required vnto the salvation of every particular man so necessarily that without it that cannot be had The assumption is no better the Text alledged hath not one word touching a generall Councell If it be replyed that those words were spoken to the Apostles and from them to the Pastors of the Church which succeed them and because those Pastors cannot consult and giue sentence touching a thing in question except they meet together therefore these words were spoken of a generall Councell To this I rejoyne The Text thus explicated yeeldeth these questions 1. Who are the Pastors of the Church 2. In what respect those Pastors doe succeed the Apostles 3. Who hath the authoritie to gather the Pastors of the Church together 4. Whether all or some and what number of Pastors haue authoritie to determine 5. Of what value their determination and sentence is 6. From whence their determination receiveth strength all which questions are no lesse doubtfull then the conclusion which the Text is brought to proue whereby it doth beg the question but proues it not His second proofe must be thus framed They with whom our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mâ—t. 18. 20. They in giving sentence of a Divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures But with a Councell truly generall our Saviour Christ is present according to his promise Mat. 18. 20. Therefore a Councell truly generall c. I answer this place of Scripture doth yeeld these questions 1. What is meant by Christs presence 2. Whether this presence be promised them in respect of their meeting or the thing whereabout they meet 3. Whether that promise extend also vnto a greater number 4. Whether the promise be made to all that so meet Pastors or not Pastors Every one whereof is no lesse difficult to be determined by the word of God then the present question therefore he doth beg the question and not proue it Farther answer then this there needs none vnto this argument seeing that no proofe can be more base and impotent then that which depends vpon things equally or more doubtfull then the thing to be proved Other proofes then these two he hath not in this point and these two are vrged by Bellarmine de Concil cap. 3. 11. lib. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. as his maine strength in this question and haue been answered by Lubbertus and Whitakers to the full but they were poore Divines Mr Mountague needs not regard or take knowledge of them CHAP. V. Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng There ever was and will be ever vpon earth a visible Church some-where or other with visible cognisances markes and signes to be discerned by viz. Gods Word preached Sacraments ministred Priesthood and ordination Appeale p. 135. Vnto which complaints may be made Gagg p. 49. I Haue nothing to set downe in this point vnder the name of the Church of England because I doe not find any thing decreed therein by our Church neither could it well for as much as in this point the Negatiue onely is defended against the Church of Rome That affirmeth a visibilitie which the Church of England denieth which Negation is implyed in the 19. Article wherein the visibilitie of the Church assigned by the Church of Rome is acknowledged in some things and it is silent for the rest which is as much as if it did say in these things we confesse the Church is alwayes visible and other visibilitie we doe deny According to order here must be inquired 1. Whether that proposition be true or not 2. Whether that proposition doe consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition doâ— dissent from the Church of England or not Before any of these can be disputed his sentence touching the visibilitie of the Church must be vnfolded that the point in question may be severed from that which is not in question Which may be done thus It hath these two parts 1. The Church is visible 2. This visibilitie consisteth in the inioying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood ordination abilitie to heare complaints That the Church is visible in the injoying of the Word and Sacraments Priesthood and ordination so farre as they are required of necessity vnto the administration of the Word and Sacraments is not in question so much is granted on all sides The Church of England hath decreed it in that 19. Article in these words The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same All the question is about the last branch viz. Whether the Church doe inioy all her officers with that freedome that it may be able and fit to determine every doubt that ariseth touching either faith or manners as appeares num 2. 6. Which doubt may well be put in this single proposition set downe by himselfe gagg p. 49. There ever was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made Now the question is truly put the next labour must be to inquire of it those 3. wayes which are set downe That it doth consent with the Church of Rome himselfe confesseth when he saith gaggp p. 50. This Controversie to wit of the visibilitie of the Church taught by the Church of Rome and denied by others may cease If he did not agree with them he would haue held it on foote there being so good reason for it they maintaine it as a ground of an Article of their faith and his adversary doth challenge the Church of England for denying of it And Bellarmines doctrine doth shew it de Ecclesia lib. 3. where he writeth thus The true Church is visible cap. 12. The Church is a Congregation subiected vnto lawfull Pastors in the profession of the Christian faith and the vse of Sacraments cap. 2. Nostra autem c. The Church is therefore visible because of this
subiection cap. 12. Septimâ— c. This visible Church cannot fayle cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches 1. The Church is visible 2. This visible Church cannot fayle 3. The Church is visible by subiection to Pastors in matters of faith In the two first Mr Mountague and the Church of Rome agree expresly In the third they agree in the thing because subiectioÌ„ to Pastors in matters of faith supposeth that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made and who are fit and haue freedome abilitie to heare complaints in matters of faith He saith there will ever be a Church to whom complaints may be made Bellarmine saith there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter is denied by Calvin and others against whom he doth proue it there and defend it cap. 16. That it doth dissent from the Church of England he might as truly haue confessed For if the Church of England had judged that the Church should be perpetually so open vnto the eye of the world as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints and determine them then it would haue confest it and taught it because it hath taught visibilitie in all other things that they do and it would haue set downe the whole truth in the point but this it hath not done therefore it is most certaine the Church of England doth deny that visibilitie of the Church which they claime he yeelds vnto He is very desirous to perswade the world of his agreement with the Church of England therefore he telleth vs Appeale p. 134. In the 19. Article Church and visible are convertible termes Therefore the 19. Article tendreth no invisibilitie The sence of this Conclusion is The 19. Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible But that is a private opinion of some and so he doth interpret himselfe Appeale p. 133. This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose if he will shew his agreement with the Church of England he must shew vs a record for this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made For so saith he number 1. 4. Your antecedent is false Church and visible in that definition cannot be convertible termes For they are not predicated one of another Secondly both of them make the subiect part of that definition The terme Church bâ—ing the thing defined is restrained vnto a speciall notion by the word visible 3. Termes convertible are adequate in their essence so are not these Church and visible for visibilitie is but an adiunct vnto the Church Your Consequence is also naught for as your selfe confesse Appeale p. 134. It is a position drawn out from the 19. Article that there is a Church of Christ invisible And indeed so it is for to say the Church is visible is to grant the Church is also invisible els how can there be a divided member vnto visible He labours to shew wherein the Church is invisible p. 135. But I leaue that because it is nothing to the point in hand as I haue shewed The proposition in question is set downe num 4. 6 which is denied to be true and that vpon good ground for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedome libertie and outward estate in the world that it should be able at all times to heare complaints and determine of them Neither doth this freedome and glorious outward estate belong to the nature of a visible Church in the sentence of the Church of England which hath bounded the totall adequate nature of the visible Church within shorter limits And indeed who would be so grossely mistaken as to thinke that the Catholike Church hath no being in the world vnlesse it be in case to meet joyntly together in one court to make lawes that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and manners It stood him vpon to proue that proposition num 5. viz. There ever was c. to be true for if it be false then the Church cannot be Iudge in Divinitie Controversies because the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies extendeth vnto and is present at all times to determine all controversies in faith and manners that shall arise in any time But this he hath not done He hath not so much as one sentence peece of a sentence or word that may tend to proue this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made In his Appeale p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to proue that The Church is alwayes visible First by reasons then by authorities of Doctor Feild Doctor Humfryes Doctor Willet Bishop Morton Bishop Iewell Doctor White with many vaunts much confidence in their authoritie concluding that they are ignorant malicious or factious that thinke otherwise But all in vaine for that was never denied nor never in question between the Church of Rome and any others If another did thus he would call it a man of straw of his owne making and tell him he shot his boult at it when he had done and such like termes But I pardon him the fault I perceiue it is his Custome to proue what all men grant and to take for granted what is denied he cannot leaue it Therefore I leaue this and passe to the next But I make too much hast I find an argument in his Appeale p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence In these words and in this forme he setteth it downe The Church of Rome hath beene ever visible The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore the true Church hath beene visible He chargeth that this be remembred that his friends doe Chew the Cud vpon it A good advice A necessary Caution I will as diligently obserue it as he lovingly gaue it I answer the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for one particular Church and other sometimes for all those also which joyne in faith with it In this place it is taken in the first sence otherwise the argument would be ridiculous That being so taken it is manifest This Syllogisme is false for the forme For The Conclusion thereof is vniversall thus The Church c. But it ought to be singular or indefinite thus Some true Church hath beene visible Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly because if he had concluded thus he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose he ought to haue concluded The Catholike Church is perpetually visible as appeares num 12. And his Readers poore simple men had not skill enough to find out that fault well let vs chew this good stuffe a little more Let it be as he will take the conclusion as you find it yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose For he ought to haue concluded what the Church shall be in all times to come The Church shall be visible He doth conclude what
the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
He complaines of false iniurious vnhonest fiery frantick c. Informers and Promoters But vnder what coullours in what ranck shall this Champion be marshalled if you set him in the Vantgard he will be in the enemies front before the rest of the battell approach if you place him in the Reare you restraine his valour He complaineth the mother is stricken through the sides of a brother but here both mother and all her children stricken through the heart with one stroake together shee a dallier all them fooles or Infants What shall I say to it If this be your obedience to your Mother reverence to your Diocesan and kindnes to your friends then Of this point enough I proceed to the next CHAP. VII Mr Mountague Church of Rome Ch. of Eng Free-will is in vs subsisting not in title onely gagg p. 108. 1. There is Free-will is as true as Gospell we grant it as much as themselues gagg p. 114. There is in vs both the facultie and vse of Free-will is certain in faith and decreed in the Councell of Trent Suarez opusc 1. lib. 1. num 1. cap. 1. The grace of God doth prevent vs that we may haue a good will and worketh with vs when we haue that good will Arti 10. Freewill is a power whereby we eat c. wee assent disagree wittingly willingly without constraint Appeal p. 99. Free-will consisteth not only in the faculty of working voluntarily or of choyce willingly that is not against the will but also it includeth a power of doing and of not doing which vsually is called a dominion over his own actions or an indifferency in working in that respect that the faculty so working of its nature is not determined vnto one but can will this or another thing which is opposite thervnto and nill or not will Suar. op 1. l. 1. n. 2. c. 1 The predestinate to life be called according to Gods purpose by his spirit they through grace obey that calling Arti 17. 2. Man in the state of nature intire had bestowed on him a facultie whereby most freely and absolutely he was Lord over his own octions could doe or not doe what he pleased would gagg p. 107. 108.  If we haue any will to rise it is hee that preuenteth our will and disposeth vs thervnto Homily for Rogation 3. part p. 456. 3. That libertie was much impaired by sinne not extinct or amolished in corrupt nature such as now it is p. 108.   4. Man hath Free-will in actions of pietie and such as belong to his salvation gagg p. 109. Mans Free-will is not lost and extinct after the fall of Adam nor is a thing consisting in title onely Concil Trent sess 6. can 5.  5. We grant the generall being working and concurring of free-will with Gods grace p. 115.   6. Man hath Free-will after preventing grace in cooperation to the increase of grace p. 108. Man is disposed vnto the turning of himselfe vnto his owne Iustification by exciting and adiuvating grace in assenting and cooperating freely with the same grace  7. Man doth freely renouÌ„ce the calling of grace freely run themselues p. 112.   8. I thinke no man will deny That mans Free-will may resist the holy Ghost in preventing and operating grace not suffering him to worke the worke of grace in them so may he also against adiuvating grace Ap. p. 89. When God toucheth mans heart by the illumination of his holy spirit man doth not altogether nothiÌ„g receiving that inspiration for because he can also reiect the same Concil Trent ses 6. cap. 5. and can dissent if he will can 4.  Man being drawn he runneth as his assistance his owne agillitie and disposition is gagg p. 110.   Man being prevented by grace he then putteth too his hand to procure augmentation of that grace gagg p. 110.   CHAP. VIII The point of Free-will set downe in the former Chapter is debated IN this point as in the former three things are to be inquired of 1. Whether the propositions delivered by him be true or not 2. Whether those propositions consent with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether those propositions dissent from the Church of England or not Of the second and third we haue his sentence in his gagg p. 107. Appeal p. 83. where he saith The particulars in this point of Free-will controverted betweene the Church of Rome and ours are of no great moment And in his Appeal from p. 84. to 95. he indevours to proue That The Church of Rome and our Church doe agree in the particulars delivered by Mr Mountague set downe in the precedent Chapter To which I answer howsoever it be with our Church for of that hereafter from hence it doth necessarily follow that He consenteth with the Church of Rome in those his prepositions set downe in the last Chapter Because he will not deny to consent to those things which in his judgement the Church of England consenteth vnto And that indeed he consenteth fully with the Church of Rome will appeare by the sight of the doctrine on both sides set downe in the Chapter going before What it saith of the nature vse remaining causes manner of working effects adjuncts objects of free-will the same saith he he comes not short one word so that it seemeth little better then a transcription out of the Romish faith and opinion taught amongst them That he dissenteth from the Church of England a little labour of mine is required to shew it It is his taske to shew his agreement therewith for he vndertooke to defend the doctrine of the Church of England therefore he must shew that the doctrine which he defendeth is the doctrine thereof But that he cannot doe except he proue the Church of England doth consent with the Church of Rome and it seemes that he himselfe perceived so much therefore he laboureth Appeal p. 84. c. to proue their consent by this argument Whitaker Chemnitius Mollerus Perkins Sâ—ecanus Hemingius Willet the Helvetian Confession the Confession of Saxonie do agree with the Church of Rome p. 87. Therefore there is no difference between our Church and the Church of Rome Which argument is not barely alledged but accompanied with all due Circumstances First for the credit thereof that it might not come barely without authoritie he telleth vs. p. 95. 1. He examined this question between them and vs of free-will with as great diligence as he could p. 95. 2. He thought thus before and so he thinkes â—ow p. 84. 3. He confirmes the antecedent by laying downe certaine points of free-will maintained by some one that side which he calleth the most moderate amongst them p. 90. and confest by those of ours p. 87. 4. He interprets the conclusion and sayth he meanes by that Church and ours moderate and temperate men on either side p. 83. I answer If his intent be not to proue the
thing more fully in his opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 15. num 20. he writeth thus Mans will cannot haue any connaturall power which by its nature is a worker of a supernaturall act either as a totall or partiall cause but when the creature doth so worke it worketh as an instrument of God although it worketh by his owne entitie yet notwithstanding not out of a force naturall but obedientall This addition I make by his owne authoritie for he doth professe in his Appeal p. 90. that he takes the foresaid explication from Pontificians I answer All this labour might haue beene spared because it helpeth the matter nothing at all It makes it more obscure then before Every man can vnderstand what you meane when you say the will doth worke by the naturall force but when you say the entitie of the will doth worke by a supernaturall force elevation and actuation he will be to seeke of your meaning Moreover this explicatioÌ„ doth take away the free vse of the free facultie which you contend for or leaue mans will to worke by the naturall force of the created facultie which is the thing you would thrust off and I shew it thus This elevation and actuation if by grace is either a morall or a physicall worke if physicall then the will is determined vnto one the free vse of the facultie is abridged and restrained for this worke of grace is previall in nature and causalitie and truely efficient vpon the will before it be applyed vnto operation in the second act If it be morall then the will doth worke of the naturall force therof because the morall worke of grace is no more but a perswasion offered to the vnderstanding and resteth there It hath no influence vnto nor reflection vpon the will which is vncapable of Iudging of truth and falshood onely it cannot will any obiect but that which the vnderstanding sayth is good which connexion between the vnderstanding and the will is naturall no worke of grace To conclude two propositions may be inferred from this explication 1. Man doth not produce supernaturall acts by the force of his created facultie 2. Man hath no free-will in supernaturall acts You are at your choice if you haue the first you haue the second if you take the second you grant the thing in question If you deny the second you must deny the first and thereby you defend a sentence which Molina doth accurse vnto hell de Concor in q. 14. art 13. disp 40. Nostra itaque c. The tenth and last sayth Man being prevented by grace he putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of grace I answer to procure may signifie the act of an efficient either morall by the way of merit or physicall by the way of reall influence into the effect In both these senses this tenth proposition is false and the Church of Rome hath decreed sess 6. cap. 8. the grace of Iustification cannot be merited much lesse will any be so voyd of pietie as to say man can compell God to giue him grace but what ever his meaning be here it must be observed mans hand is the next cause of a supernaturall act vnto preventing grace and the putting thereof forth is attributed vnto man himself which is a large doctrine of free-will as I haue shewed in the former part of this Chapter num 4. Far exceeding the limits of the Councell of Trenâ— sess 6. cap. 5. 6. Which joyneth grace and mans will alwayes together in his preparation and assigneth adiuvating grace between preventing and cooperating which sheweth his consent with Arminius in those grosse points which the Church of Rome durst not Patronize CHAP. IX The point of Iustification Mr Mountague Man hath a double estate of sinne wherein he was borne produced in life and action acquisite renewed according to the spirit gagg p. 141. In the first state he is not Iust p. 141. To Iustifie hath a 3. fold extent To make Iust To make more Iust To declare or pronouÌ„ce Iust p. 140 Iustification properly is in the first sence gagg p. 142. 144. A sinner is then Iustified when he is made Iust That is translated from state of nature to state of grace as Colos 1. 13. Who hath delivered vs from the power of darknesse and hath translated vs c. Which is motion as they say betwixt two termes And Consisteth in forgiuenes of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily Both the act of Gods spirit in man p. 142. 143. In the state of Grace a man is Iust when he is changed which must haue concurrence of owâ— things Privation of being to that which was the body of sinne Wherein A new constitution vnto God in another state Of grace whereto In which he that is altered in state changed in condition transformed in mind renued in soule regenerate and borne a new to God by grace is Iust in the state of Iustification p. 141. To speake properly God onely Iustifieth who alone imputeth not sinne and createth a new heart within vs. The soule of man is the subiect of this act In which vnto which are necessarily required certaine preparations and previous dispositions to the purpose As knowledge of God c. feare hope contrition loue desire of purpose for a new life and such like But these are all with and from faith The principall indowment of grace may worthily be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian piâ—tie Faith gagg p. 143. 144. The Church of Rome The Iustification of a sinner is a translation from that state in which man was borne a sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace Concil Trent sess 6. cap. 4. Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is made Iust of vniust cap. 7. There is required on mans part that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his owne will vnto the obtaining the grace of Iustification can 9. Man is disposed vnto the iustice of Iustification By faith feare hope loue begun some hatred and detestation of sinne a purpose to be baptized to begin a new life and to keepe Gods coÌ„mandements cap. 6. We are sayd therefore to be Iustified by faith because faith is the beginning foundation and roote of every Iustification cap. 8. Cap. 10. It decreeth that Iustification receiud is increased The Church of England That we are Iustified by faith onely is a most wholsome doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homilie of Iustification Arti 11. To be washed from sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin is that IustificatioÌ„ or righteousnes which S. Paul speaketh of when he sayth No man is justified by the workes of the Law The forgiuenesse of sinnes and trespasses is that righteousnesse which is taken accepted and allowed of God for our profit and
said to the point it selfe will come afterwards when the nature of remission of sins comes to be shewed no. 31. § But how Onely thus much sufficeth to set downe the true state of the question betweene the Church of Rome and the Church of England in this point which hee harpeth so much vpon which doth also euidently shew that this point hath nothing to doe with faith vnto Iustification neither could it haue lengthened out his foggy and mistie pretences brought to excuse himselfe from agreeing with the Church of Rome and disagreeing from the Church of England in this point Wherefore I leaue it and proceed So confident is he in this fancied victory that from thence he inferreth in the same page 183. a disputation in these words If they meant no otherwise then thus as I conceiue they did not I see no reason to dissent from them There can be no fitter answer to be giuen hereunto then to returne you your owne words Appeale â—ag 184. You cite no words name no place send me to no text page nor particulars by any direction that I may know where to finde what you intend a meere tricke of iugling companions Marry I finde some things in the Councell of Trent which I dare say will not downe nor digest with you aâ— opposing your conceit or rather dreame or wilfull peruerting the meaning of the Councell the which because I haue a fit time I will not let it alone till another Where you say If they meant your meaning is to refer vs to the decree of the councel of Trent where It maketh Iustification to bee the pulling of vs out of the power of darknesse and the translation into the Kingdome of Christ Sess 6. cap. 3. And where it doth insinuate the description of the Iustification of a sinner that it is a translation from that state wherein man was borne into the state of grace cap. 4. That you referre vs hither or vnto no other place in the Councell I take for granted Where you say if they meant no more but thus your purpose is to send vs to your owne words a few lines before viz. He that is iustified is also regenerate Now we haue the true sense of the antecedent part I let passe the consequence of your proposition and come to your assumption which must bee set downe in these words But the Councell of Trent in these places Sess 6. c. 3. and 4. c. meaneth no more but that a iustified man is also sanctified Which assumption is wanting and in stead thereof you bring vs the proofe of it in these words As I conceiue they did not Now all parts of the argument are set right I answer to it The assumption is false yea so odiously false as that a man would not expect such a falshood to fall from the pen of a man that vnderstands chalk from Cheese or that had conscience to declare the truth when hee vnderstood it This might be made to appeare by diuers passages in the Councell of Trent but I will content my selfe onely with these three 1 Sanctification is by grace infused Iustification it selfe is sanctification Therefore Iustification it selfe is by grace infused The proposition and assumption are the words of the Councell of Trent cap. 7. In which 1. it speaketh of the same Iustification whereof it had spoken in the 3. and 4. Chapters 2. By Iustification it selfe it meaneth the quidditie essence and being of Iustification both which are manifest of themselues they need no proofe And that sanctification is formally and intrinsically by grace infused is likewise as certaine 2 The onely formall cause of Iustification is the very being thereof Grace infused is the onely formall cause of Iustification Therefore grace infused is the very being of Iustification The proposition is a principle in nature and agreed vpon for truth therefore may not be questioned The assumption is the expresse words of the Councell of Trent in the 7. Chapter 3 If grace infused doth not concurre to the being of Iustification then it is by remission of sins onely excluding grace infused But the being of Iustification is not by remission of sinnes onely excluding grace infused Therfore the being of Iustification is by grace infused The consequence of the proposition is so necessary that it cannot be questioned The assumption is the words of the couÌ„cel c. 7. caÌ„ 11. What credit of truth is wanting in the assumption he will supply by the proofe thereof which forsooth is his owne conceit he conceiued they meant not otherwise than thus therfore you must coÌ„ceiue so to Vnto which I might returne answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 178. Shall I bring proofes to Anaxagoras for the snow is white Who would not suffer himselfe to bee perswaded so nay because he was otherwise by preconceit perswaded he said it did not so much as seeme white vnto him Your opinions are your owne you will opine what formerly you haue thought so doe for me and there an end But I cannot so let it passe because you keepe not these conceits at home but so much are you filled with them that you must needs vent them or burst And you cannot bee contented with that but you raile and reuile such as dissent from you and more then so wee must now come to an agreement with the Church of Rome in the point of Iustification that haue dissented for many ages till M. Mountagu his conceit sprung vp in the world Therefore vnto his conceit I oppose the resolued iudgements of all the Schoolemen that haue liued in the Church of Rome till the Councell of Trent all agreeing in this one sentence Grace infused is essentiall vnto Iustification And shall we thinke the Councell of Trent would determine against theÌ„ Surely no Besides the Councell of Trent hath framed the decree out of Thomas who was the first that brought the body of Diuinity into a compleat order Peter Lombard Richard Altisiodore Albert and Alexander the Predecessors of Thomas not attaining thereunto yet consented with him in this thing Since the Councell of Trent all on that side without exception doe vnderstand the Councell of Trent to place the primary and proper being of Iustification in grace infused I might amplify this bold and presumptuous act of his daring to oppose a multitude of learned men for some hundred yeares deliuering their iudgments singly and afterwards decreeing the same in a Councell ioyntly and last of all the same decree so interpreted and defended vniuersally but I leaue it and conclude in his owne words Appeale p. 248. You vnderstand not the state nor depth of the question but scumme vpon the surface and gibberish you cannot tell for what And thus much is enough and too much to haue said touching his excuse set down no. 4. Now I come to proue he did not meane as hee pretended there but he meant to make grace enfused essentiall to Iustification In which also I wil content my selfe
the point I will set downe and then apply it It saith Good workes cannot put away our sinnes Artic. 12. In which sentence there is a direct contradiction put vnto the Doctrine last recited out of Church of Rome and M. Mountagu The terme put away must signifie that putting away which is called remission and not satisfaction for this doth make recompence for sinne but doth not put away sin which importeth the destroying of the being remaining of sin it selfe By denying the puting away of sinne to good workes the meriting of remission of sinne by grace and the effects therof is denyed for otherwise then so good workes are not fit nor able to put away sin and himselfe speaks thus of it Gagg p. 156. Now forasmuch as good workes are the fruits of a liuely faith as the Article speaketh that is of the habit of grace the remission of sinnes that it denyeth to good workes it denyeth to the habit of grace and therein it denyeth that remission of sinne is a formall effect or physicall worke of grace forasmuch as the remission of sin can be no other effect or operation of the habit of grace but formall and Physicall The Homilie of Almes pag. 329. teaches the same thing expresly which is a proofe sufficient that M. Mountagu doth dissent from the Church of England and no dissent in a matter of this kind can be greater then a contradiction Our Church doth teach positiuely what remission of sinnes is wherein it doth assigne a nature contrary to that which the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu doe giue vnto it If I make that appeare I doubt not then to say M. Mountagu dissenteth from the Church of England I doe it thus The true knowledge of the remission of sinne consisteth in the true vnderstanding of these two things viz. 1. what is meant by sinne which is said to be forgiuen Secondly what act of God it is by which it is forgiuen Sinne of which a man may be denominated a sinner may be conceiued two waies first for the act of sin past secondly for the will of sinning as Thomas hath truely obserued 3. part q. 61. art 4. C. The will of sinning is not the obiect of that act which the Scripture calleth remitting because the will of sinning importeth an indisposition vnto good and an aptnesse to sinne remaining in the will from whence the Scripture doth not denominate a man a sinner but from the act of sinne The act of sinne past is the obiect of remission as is confessed on all sides The Councell of Trent hath decreed it Sess 6. cap. 5. where it maketh such as are turned from God by sinne the men that are iustified So doth all the expositors of the Councell with one consent make the act of sin the thing remitted and from which a man is iustified Bellarmine hath it de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 16. with whose testimony I will rest contented others may say the same thing but not more nor more cleerly then he hath done The Church of England teacheth it in the first Homilie of saluation where it nameth a little after the beginning sinnes forgiuen by the name of trespasses and againe sins from which man is washed and which are not imputed it calleth sinne in act or deed The act of God whereby the sinnes of man are remitted is set out by the Church of England by diuers titles according to the course and phrase of Scripture but of them all one is the most fit and of best signification for this present occasion viz. The not-imputing of sinne which it vseth in the first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning the words lie thus Man is washed from his sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall be imputed to their damnation In which sentence washing away the spots of sinne which is the act remitting sinnes is resolued into the act of not-imputing where it saith so washed as not imputed Hee must not deny this Homilie to be the Doctrine of the Church of England for hee doth auouch it to bee such in his Appeale pag. 190. and 194. If it be said the Church of England doth assigne other acts of remitting sinne besides this in vsiâ—g other titles I answer though it do vse other titles yet not assigne any other act but this for this doth extend as largely as them all and they doe but â—xplicate this therefore wee may conclude in the doctrine of the Church of England The not-imputation of sinne is the sole and onely act whereby sinnes are remitted Touching this act ariseâ—h all the difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church with which Church of Rome M. Mountagu consenteth both of them assigning such an act of God as doth really differ and put a contrariety vnto this The Church of Rome teacheth 1. that sinne is remitted by a created being namely the habit of grace 2. That remission of sinne is wrought in the soule of man 3. That the manner how sinne is remitted by grace is formall and physicall as a painter that couereth a thing deformed with beauty and good shape Our Church maketh 1. the Creator directly and immediately the worker thereof 2. It placeth the thing effected not in man but in the outward estate and condition of man 3. The manner of working to be meerly efficient viz. God out of his prerogatiue Royall discharging our account Not putting our sinnes to our reckoning And thus much is sufficient to proue his totall agreement with the Church of Rome and disagreement with the Church of England in the nature of Iustification and therewith I might put an end vnto this whole point But I will goe a little further to the satisfying of the point propounded n o 12. c. Wherein my labour will not be lost for that which I shall say will serue aboundantly to shew 1. how diuinely the Church of England hath determined in this point 2. How little reason he had to depart from the doctrine of our Church in this point 3. The great reason that euerie man hath to striue for the doctrine of the Church of England in this point as for the faith once deliuered to the Saints Against this doctrine of the Church of England the Church of Rome as may well be conceiued doth thus dispute If no other act doth concurre vnto the remitting of sinne but the act of not-imputing of sinne then a man after remission of sinne remaineth a sinner truely and alwaies foule and vncleane But a man after remission of sinne remaineth not a sinner truely foule and vncleane Therefore besides the act of not-imputing of sinne there is required some other act vnto the remission of sinne viz. The infusion of grace whereby the true and proper nature of sinne is taken away rooted out and abolished This argument is framed out of the 4. and 9. arguments of Bellar. de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and also taken out of those places
with it hee holds his peace The old prouerbe is the silence of the accused is a confession of guiltinesse Which seldome times proues vntrue what hee is of certainty is knowne to God and himselfe hee standeth or falleth to his owne master it is meet I meddle no further but with his positions and proofes wherefore I leaue this and proceed We haue no reason to suppose that the Church of England was euer of opinion that the habit of grace can be lost for if it were then must it also beleeue that 1 Some reprobate is also sanctified 2 Some sins are mortall other some veniall 3. The habit of Iustice and the works thereof be perfect Iustice and adequate vnto the diuine Law 4. Purgatory Pardons Masses Trentals Dirges c. be profitable vnto some that be dead but we know by perpetuall experience that our Church abhorreth and the professors of her faith publikely and priuately protest their detestation of all these Articles of the popish faith therefore we haue a cloud of witnesses that do all testifie that the Church of England maketh the losing of the habit of grace no part of her faith Moreouer in the 22. Article it doth expresly disclaime the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory and pardons Lastly This point of falling from grace hath beene commonly and vniuersally reiected as well by Ministers as priuate men and no man questioned in the least sort for doing wrong thereby to the faith of our Church which is a most evident proofe that they taught and beleeued as our Church euer beleeued If it be answered some in our Church haue taught falling from grace I reply It is true some haue so done but they haue beene but a few and cryed down too by the most and thrust off with no small signe of dislike from authoritie I haue his owne testimonie three times yeelded Gag p. 158. and p. 171. Appeale pag. 26. affirming that our Church hath left this question vndecided which against him is a proofe without question that his falling from grace is not the doctrine of the Church of England And yet behold Hee would perswade that his falling from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England delâ—uered not in ordinary tracts and lectures but publikely positiuely and declatorily and for proofe hereof he saith he will bring vs record thereof Appeale pag. 28. 36. which he promiseth shall be by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles c. Appeale p. 37. Appeale p. 29. Thus hee beginneth to performe his promise In the 16. Article we read After wee haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart away from grace and fall into sinne That the full force of this argument may appeare and my answer may bee directly and fitly applyed thereunto it is needfull that I put it into due forme and thus it will stand Whatsoeuer is comprehended in the 16 Article is the publike doctrine of our Church But that a man may depart from grace is comprehended in the 16. Article Therefore that a man may depart from grace is the publike doctrine of the Church of England I answer if he will stand to his proposition hee may well be inrolled for a child obedient and a Champion most valiant vnto his mother the Church of England Bellarmine and all the Doctors of the Church of Rome are but faint-hearted cowards in comparison of him The greatest part of the acts in Councels doe not appertaine vnto faith The disputations that goe before the reasons that be added nor the explications that are brought doe not appertaine to faith but onely the naked decrees and of them not all but onely such as are propounded as matter of faith So saith Bellarmine de Concil auct lib. 2. cap. 12. Quartum est c. and no Papist euer durst giue more then thus yet Mr. Mountagu dares giue to the Church of England more then this Euery sentence in the Articles with him is matter of faith and so he doth equall them vnto the scriptures to whom it belongeth that euery sentence be a matter of faith as Bellarmine truely auerreth in the place last alleadged If he will disclaime that proposition his argument falleth of it selfe To answer more specially that Article comprehendeth two conclusions viz. 1 The baptised may sinne 2 The baptised sinner may receiue forgiuenesse These two haue their seuerall proofes to wit 1 He may depart from grace Therefore sinne 2 He may repent Therefore haue forgiuenesse Euery one of the conclusions in that Article is the doctrine of the Church of England Your proposition so vnderstood is true but your assumption is false Departing from grace is not any conclusion in the Article But suppose that euery sentence in the Article is the doctrine of the Church of England yet this Article will not profit you for A man may depart from grace by neglecting to obey it by losing it In the first sense I grant the Article doth teach departing from grace but in this sense the Article hath nothing in fauour of you much lesse hath it your falling from grace in expresse words for yours is of losing the habit of grace If it be replyed the word depart may not be taken in that sense I reioyne it may bee so taken in this place because he that hath the habit of grace doth alwaies first neglect the motion and calling of actuall grace before hee commits sinne and this I take as granted Therefore you must proue that the Article doth vnderstand it otherwise then so else it can haue no stroke in your businesse Let it be admitted in courtesie that the Article speaketh of the losse of grace yet it will come farre short of your purpose for it cannot speake of the losse of the habit of grace I proue it from the Article it selfe and your owne doctrine thus The habit of grace is lost by sin So say you Grace in the Article is not lost by sinne But contrary Grace is lost therefore sinne committed So saith the Article Therefore grace in the Article is not the habit of grace By this it is most euident and past doubt that there is nothing in the Article that auoucheth the losse of the habit of grace But pardon him this mistake I will giue my word for him hee neuer studied the Article to find the true sense of it Doe you thinke his studie so meane as that he would condiscend so low as to English Articles I assure you no. I tell you and he tells it me Appeale pag. 11. Hee neuer studied Bastingius Chatichisme Fenners diuinitie Bucanus Trelcatius Polanus and such like His learning is all old The Apostles Canons Polycarpus Denis Linus Cletus Clemens Annacletus Amphilochius and others of their time are his puefellowes and hourly companions And he hath good reason for it too The neerer the fountaine the clearer the streame the further off the fouler pag. 12. His second argument beginneth Appeale p. 32. and is thus to be framed Whatsoeuer is
taught in the Homilies is the authorised and subscribed doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke of Homilies was first composed and published in King Edwards time approued and iustified in Parliament in Queene Elizabeths daies and authorised againe of late to be read in Churches But that a man may fall away from grace is taught in the Homilies Therefore falling from grace is the doctrine of the Church of England I answer a man would verily thinke hee would haue vs beleeue his proposition to be a certaine and vndeniable truth he bestows so much sweat in the proofe of it but good man hee meant nothing lesse or else at the turning ouer of a new leafe he becomes a new man for he professeth himselfe of another mind in the 260 pag. following in these words I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholsome exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions confirmed of the Church of England They haue not dogmaticall positions or doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point They may seeme to speake somewhat too hardly and stretch some saying beyond the vse and practice of the Church of England The ancientest Fathers sometimes doe hyperbolize in their popular Sermons which in dogmaticall decisions they would not doe nor auow the doctrine by them so deliuered Now after this inforcing sort may our Homilie speake and be so interpreted which are all popular Sermons fitted vnto the capacitie of common people Well there is good reason why we should take his second thoughts for the better and so leaue him trāpling his own proposition into the dirt by which meanes his assumption doth not deserue answer But it may be he will put new life into his proposition by a speciall priuiledge that this homilily hath aboue the rest namely that it is for explication of the doctrine contained in the Article I answer he seemeth so to pretend Appeale pa. 32. but it is false we find not any direction from the Article to the Homilie nor any reflection in the homilie vpon the Article neither can the one explicate the other but are really distinct conclusions and proofes The Article saith He departeth from grace therefore he sinneth The Homilie saith He falleth from God by a wicked life therefore is depriued of grace Hee that can make new Articles can create new expositors Although this bee sufficient to satisfie the argument yet I will goe on to examine that which followes In proofe of his assumption he saith p. 32. The title of the Homilie is of falling away from God which very title is sufficient warrant for the Doctrine in this point I answer this title hath nothing to doe with the losse of grace falling from God signifies turning away from Gods law and so the Homilie it selfe a little after the beginning doth expound the title and saith They that may not abide the Word of God but following the stubbornnesse of his owne heart they goe and turne away from God If by falling from God should bee meant losing of grace then the Homilie must bee conceiued thus to reason If you lose your grace then God will take his grace from you For in that sort the Homilie doth reason from falling from God as the reading thereof will shew but it were most absurd to thinke that the Homilie would so reason His second reason for the same purpose is taken out of the Homilie it selfe and standeth in this forme They that are depriued of grace and heauenly life which they had in Christ and become as without God in the world giuen into the power of the Deuill as was Saul and Iudas they lose grace totally and finally But according to the Homilie the truely iustified are thus depriued For It is said they were in Christ they continued sometime in Christ Therefore according to the Homilie the truely iustified may lose their grace totally and finally By this argument hee thinkes the cause is his at common law yee must now yeeld or turne heretike against the Doctrine of the Church of England but he is much mistaken The homilie doth affirme thus much by the way of rhetoricall enforcement to perswade men to take heed they turne not away from Gods Law It being so vnderstood I grant the whole reason but it profits him not He promised n o 5. the positiue and declaratory Doctrine of the Church of England but rhetoricall enforcements are not such It may be some will say there is a truth in this enforcement I answer what truth soeuer there is in it this is certaine the faith of the Church of England is not contained in it No man well aduised will send vs to seeke for the faith of our Church vnto an argument vrging the practice of a duty in a popular Sermon But what that truth is we may best learne from the Author of this Homilie himselfe whose meaning we finde to be comprehended in these two things By such threatnings of Gods taking away of grace First the great danger of sinne Secondly the necessity of repentance is declared Both which are set downe in the first Sermon of Repentance a little from the beginning in these two sentences 1 Wee doe daily by our disobedience fall away from God thereby purchasing vnto our selues if hee should deale with vs according to his Iustice eternall damnation 2 Whereas the Prophet had afore set forth the vengeance of God it is as if he should say although you doe by your sinne deserue to bee vtterly destroyed and now you are in a manner on the very edge of the sword yet if you will speedily returne vnto him he will most mercifully receiue you into fauour againe By which it is euident the opinion of the Author of the Homily was not that man that had grace should by sinning be brought to that condition indeed and in the thing that his habit of grace should be taken from him but that the vrging of such seuerity did fitly serue to restraine man from sinning to reduce him vnto repentance Which being so all the confidence which he put in this argument doth vanish and come to nothing and himselfe may bee ashamed that putteth so great confidence therein p. 32. 33. and 34. I might also returne him the like amplifications vnto the seuerall parts of my answer as might fit to the seuerall amplifications of his argument but I let such things passe His third argument I finde Appeale page 33. c. in these words 3 He that saith a man may fall away and may recouer implyeth withall that some men may fall away and may not recouer But the Article saith the first Therefore it implieth the second I answer this argument requires little to bee said to it because it presumeth that the Article speaketh of losing the habit of grace which hee hath not proued nor can yea I haue shewed the Article may bee vnderstood otherwise cānot be vnderstood so no 7. Lastly the assumption is
iustified man may fall away from God and become not the childe of God Appeale page 59. The Church of England holdeth and teacheth punctually that a man may fall from grace Appeale page 73. It is the Doctrine of the Church of England that a man iustified may fall away from grace Ap. p. 89. And when he had belaboured himselfe almost out of breath to proue that falling from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England the Ancients and the Scriptures he concludeth in these words I doe not say more then I am vrged to doe by the plaine and expresse words of our Articles and Doctrine publikely professed and established in our Church Appeale page 37. Other faire flowers that argue him one of the learnedst in the Church of England might bee collected hither but I content my selfe with these because the Reader may finde them in their owne places His last argument in this matter is set downe Appeale page 36. in these words Your prime leaders haue vnderstood the Tenet of the Church of England to be as I haue reported it and accordingly they haue complained against it I answer it is very likely hee would conclude from hence Therefore you must so vnderstand it also I let passe his bitternesse for that hurteth none that thinke not of it The Doctrine of the Church of England is vnderstood according to the primary sense and meaning thereof and sometimes also in a forced interpretation some haue complained of and obiected against this latter and so farre I grant this whole reason and good reason they had too for so doing It becommeth the Pastors people of the Church of England to discouer detect the corruptors of their faith But against the first neuer any excepted neither is there any reasō why Take the words of our Church as they lie force them not to serue a turne and they are familiar to vnderstanding and of a manifest truth And thus haue I dispatched all his arguments whereby he thinkes to proue falling from grace to be the Doctrine of the Church of England In the next place commeth his proofes to bee examined which he produceth to proue that a man may fall from grace Of which he hath no small store in his Gagge from page 159. to page 165. wherein hee hath followed Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. step by step omitting nothing that is of any force nor adding any thing that can supply any defect in Bellarmine Hee borroweth of him so much as his confidence in the plentie and perspecuity of diuine testimony Bellarmine saith Quod attinet c. The testimonies of Scripture are so many and so cleere that it is to be admired how it could come into the minde of a man to say Grace could not be lost Mr. Mountagu saith The Scripture speaketh plaine that a man may fall from grace Gagge page 161. Falling from grace is fully cleared and resolued in Scripture Gagge page 165. The Scripture is expresse for falling from grace Appeale page 36. I will giue answer to all the allegations produced let them be Bellarmines or Mr. Mountagues or whosoeuer else Truth may be defended against any opposer The whole multitude of their allegations may be reduced vnto two Sylogismes the former whereof standeth thus If euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity then he that hath grace may lose that grace For The most righteous man liuing cōtinually doth or may mortally transgresse Where mortall sin is committed God is disobeyed Where God is disobeyed he will not abide Where he wil not abide grace cannot consist Where grace cannot consist it must needs be lost Gagge page 161. But euery righteous man may and some doe leaue his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Therefore he that hath grace may lose that grace I answer the words righteous and righteousnesse in this argument must be taken for the act not the habit and he doth so vnderstand it I take as granted This being so the assumption is true and needs no proofe yet notwithstanding hee alleadgeth many places of Scripture as Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. cap. 33. 12. 13. 18. Matth. cap. 12. 24. Luke cap. 8. 13. Iohn cap. 15. 2. Matth. cap. 24. 12. Rom. cap. 11. 20. 21. 1 Tim. cap. 6. 20. cap. 1. 18. 19. cap. 4. Gal. cap. 5. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. Heb. cap. 6. 4. and he concludeth that infinite are the testimonies of Scripture to the purpose that these speake vnto All which may be applyed vnto the assumption of this reason and cannot bee applyed to any other sentence neither doe they affirm any more but this viz. euery righteous man may and some doe omit holy actions and commit sinne in the actuall disobedience to Gods law Then hee addeth diuers examples of righteous men that neglected their obedience to Gods law and committed actuall sinne Which must be referred vnto the proofe of the latter part of the assumption and can belong to no other by which it is manifest that all this goodly shew and bumbasted brag of infinite places of Scripture all teaching falling from grace at the last commeth to no more but what euery man will grant and being granted will profit him nothing hee is not thereby one hayre the neerer to this conclusion A man may lose the habit of grace For The consequence of the proposition is naught and the proofe thereof false in many branches thereof auowed onely vpon his owne word without the least shew or pretence of proofe Surely this man meant not sincerely when hee vndertooke to proue that which no man did euer deny but takes as granted and leaues vnproued that which all men doe deny that ioyne not in faith with the Church of Rome That it may appeare I say true I will giue you an account of some faults in the consequence of the proposition and proofe thereof The consequence of the proposition dependeth vpon this sentence The habit of grace departeth from him that actually disobeyeth Gods law If this sentence be true his consequence is good if it be false the consequence is naught the latter part doth not follow vpon the former but this sentence the habit of grace c. is most false as will appeare To make it seeme true in the proofe of his consequence he doth first distinguish of sinne and then telleth vs what kinde of sinne it is that maketh grace depart Lastly hee giueth a reason why that departeth through this but how truely this is affirmed and substantially proued we shall see in the next passage The first branch of his proofe saith Euery righteous man may or doth sinne mortally In which sentence he taketh two things as granted 1 Some sinnes are mortall some veniall and not mortall 2 A man habituated by sanctitie may commit mortall sinne I answer if by mortall hee meant no more but sinne tending and conducing vnto damnation it would not be denyed him that sinne is mortall but thus
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
and an essence really subsisting when he did administer the sacrament to his Disciples and said This is my body c. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament But Christ gaue substance and an essence really subsisting c. Therefore the body of Christ is really present I answer The word substance c. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine or for the substance of Christs body That Christ gaue the substance of bread and wine I grant and so the assumption is true and hee must grant it likewise or else say with the Councell of Trent Sess 13. can 2. That it doth not remaine but is changed c. which I presume he will not doe But the word substance being thus vnderstood he must thus argue Hee gaue the substance of bread therefore the substance of his body was present These two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow so the consequence of the proposition is naught If by the word substance hee meant Christs body then the substance of his body is affirmed to be giuen but not explicated how hee gaue it nor proued yet that he gaue it This is his old vaine you must go seeke his meaning for the sense and take his word for the truth or else his is no man of this world I will bestow some paines to finde out both To giue may be after an humane sort that is when I deliuer a thing in my possession into the possession of another I had it then another hath it now hee is seized I am dispossessed of it If Christ gaue the substance of his body thus then the substance of his body was present But Christ did not giue the substance of his body on this manner If hee will say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sort hee must proue it by the word of God for it is impossible vnto naturall vnderstanding that Christ should deliuer the substance of his owne body out of his owne possession into the possession of his Disciples Furthermore Giuing may be after an heauenly and spirituall manner that is to say vnto faith If he say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sense Then he saith true and thus he must say or disclaime the faith of the Church of England for so saith our Church in the 28 Article But then Christ might so giue and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament For we lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God Thus spiritually with the mouth of our faith we eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood c. as I haue alledged out of Bishop Iewel in his reply to Harding p. 238. see Defen Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer I hope no man will require mee to proue that Christ is not really present in the Sacrament that belongs not to me but because they affirme that hee is present and tels vs we must beleeue that God hath reuealed it therefore it is enough for vs to call for a sight of that diuine reuelation and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof euen vpon that ground which Bishop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology part 2. cap. 12. diuis 1. p. 220. namely Christ nor his Apostles neuer taught nor the Primitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall presence Thus haue I ended this argument and the whole point of reall presence and I hope haue made it appeare that it is neither the doctrine of the Church of England nor a true doctrine CHAP. XV. The point of Images Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England Images and Idols may be two things vnto Christians they are not vnlawful in all manner of religious imployment The Images of Christ of the Virgin Marie and other Saints may bee had and kept in Churches honour and worship is due and must be yeelded vnto them Taken out of the Homilies against perill of Idolatry printed 1576. the second Tome The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may bee set vp in Churches Not that any diuinity or power is beleeued to bee in them for which they are worshipped or that anie thing is desired of them or that a trust is placed in them The words Idoll and Image bee words of diuers tōgues and sounds yet vsed in the Scriptures indifferently for one thing alwayes p. 27. to bring Images into the Churches is a foule abuse and great enormitie page 27. Be forbidden and vnlawfull p. 84. Not things indifferent nor tolerable pag. 96 97. There is a respect due vnto and honour giuen relatiuely vnto the picture of saints Christ they may be vsed for helps of piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Gagg p. 318. For the instruction of the vnlearned renewing the remembrance of the history and stirring vp of deuotion Gagg p. 300. But because the honour that is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototype which they represent so as by the Images which wee kisse and before whom we vncouer the head kneele downe we adore Christ worship Saints whose images they beare Bishops ought diligently to teach so as 1 The people be trained vp in the articles of faith by the histories of our redemption expressed in pictures or other similitudes 2 Be put in mind by Images of the benefits and gifts which are bestowed vpon thē by Christ 3 To giue thankes to God for the Saints by whom mirales are wrought and good examples set before them and to follow their life manners  For instance in remembring more feelingly and so being impassioned more effectually with the death of our Sauiour when wee see that story represented vnto vs by a skilfull hand Appeale p. 254. Concil Trent Sess 25. de inuoca c.  CHAP. XVI The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed HEre we enquire of three things 1 Whether his doctrine of Images bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth therein with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth therein from the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is sufficiently testified by their words and his He saith Images may be had in Churches and Honour is due and to be giuen vnto them So saith the Councell He saith Honour is due and giuen relatiuely The Councell saith The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the prototype which is the same with his He saith They may be vsed for the instruction of the ignorant recalling the memory of the history and stirring vp of deuotion The Councell saith The articles of faith may be learned by them men put in mind of the benefits by Christ and stirred vp to giue thankes for the miracles and to imitate the vertuous actions wrought by the Saints Which differeth nothing from him He concludeth the point of Images thus Let practice
and doctrine goe together we agree So that the question is not what may bee giuen them Gagg p. 319. These words as they lye be voyd of sense they containe neither affirmation nor negation they bring nothing that is affirmed of or denied vnto to speak formally they haue neither subiect predicate nor vinculum If this word your be added vnto the words practice and doctrine and the word then bee put before the words we agree then that sentence may bee vnderstood but he will not abide him that shall doe so for he rageth against him that shall doe so Appeale p. 256. c. Whether those words be added or no his agreement with the Church of Rome doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them for 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome with whom he hath this present disputation for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them Whatsoeuer you say c. In your practice c. So that it is all one as if he had said Let your practice and doctrine goe together c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church for he speaketh of doctrine without limitation and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images which is further confirmed by saying the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them Which is as much as if he said I consent vnto their whole doctrine 3. By the doctrine of their Church he must vnderstand the decree of the Councell of Trent for their Church hath no other doctrine but that the rest is opinions of singular men so that his sentence now set downe is as if he had said I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the place alledged that The honour to bee giuen to Images is kissing of them vncouering the head and bowing downe before them Which must be vnderstood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome because The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God and the learned amongst them as Thomas by name and others with him perswade that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix as to Christ himselfe in heauen For thus he writeth and in this hee putteth the difference betweene himselfe and them Gagge page 299. and 319. I answer this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome for the one instance alleadged is matter of fact and hath not to doe in this businesse which concernes onely the faith of their Church the other which is the sentence of Thomas is matter of opinion which the Councell hath not decreed and Bellarmine saith de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing whereof this of Thomas is but one so that we may conclude hee differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them and this is all hee saith and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith which is the thing wee seeke for I answer further It doth not appeare that hee doth dissent from them in this opinion neither For he yeeldeth honour vnto Images Gagge page 318. but doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that honour which he giues from that which they giue If it be replyed the Councell giueth little honour to Images and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed I answer that honour which the Councell giueth is falsely giuen and is a matter of faith which we may not receiue for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation If you aske whether hee agreeth with the Church of England or not Hee will answer he doth agree with it and doth affirme so much in effect Gagge page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them being set vp there or which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion much lesse that they should be helpes of piety c. The case being such it was a face without a face that said wee and Protestants doe them all Gagge page 318. The very truth is he doth contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England in some of these positions directly and in other some by necessary consequence and I proue it thus The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies is the Doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke it selfe and the vse thereof is established by publike authority and the subscription of all Ministers Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies Therefore he doth contradict c. The assumption or second part will bee apparent to him that readeth the words on both sides set downe in the former Chapter It saith Idoll and Image is the same thing and alleadgeth the vse of Scripture for it He saith Image and Idoll may be two things that is are not one It saith Images may not be brought into Churches and that being there they bee vnlawfull and intollerable He saith they may bee brought into Churches they are not vnlawfull and are sometimes profitable all which are direct contradictions affirming what it denieth and denying what it affirmeth Lastly if Images may not be brought into Churches then may they not be imployed in religion for helpes of piety the instruction of the ignorant and the stirring vp of deuotion c. for these are more then that because Images in Churches may bee for ornament or for no vse The Homilie doth deny the placing of Images in Churches therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety c. now he teacheth contradictory to this in making Images helpes vnto piety therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie by necessary consequence Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection and for that end thus he saith Appeale page 260. I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions of our Church or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point I answer in the 12. Chapter no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church so constant is hee and so settled in his iudgement Let vs take what he will admit which we finde to be three things first they are exhortations secondly godly thirdly To bee propugned and subscribed in some things I require no more Exhortations they are that
a writ of dotage The Bishop shall haue the Church of England that furious one and all her children to beare him company The Homilie concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that Appeale p. 255. The reason which our Church and the Bishop doth alleadge is this viz. because they are the cause of much euill M. Mountagu saith no they are sometimes profitable Gagg p. 318. But I will follow the Church of England and the Bishop let him gang alone for me By these arguments of our Church propounded and defended against his exceptions it doth euidently appeare that Images in Churches and imployed as he appointed are vnlawfull and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu that Honour is not due to Images If hee doth not rest content with this proofe it stands him vpon to shew vs the diuine law which inioyneth man to giue honour to Images forasmuch as without such a law the honouring of them is an humane inuention a seruice done vnto God which he reiecteth as odious and abhominable and consequently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome and receiued by M. Mountagu touching the hauing imploying and honouring of Images is erronious CHAP. XVII Of workes of supererogation M. Mountagu The Church of England A man may doe with the assistance of Gods grace things as counselled onely and not commanded Voluntariâ— works besides ouer and aboue Godâ— commandements 1 are works of supâ—rerogation 2. Canâ—â—t bee taught without pride arrogancy and impietie A man in some one point may doe more then is exacted  A man may doe more then he needed to haue done out of strict command Gagg p. 104.  A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any law of God Gagg pag. 105.  CHAP. XVIII The former point of workes of supererogation is disputed ACcording to our former course three questions are to bee handled 1 Whether there be any such workes or no. 2 Whether in affirming of them hee consent with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissent from the Church of England therein or no. In this Chapter I haue brought no Doctrine vnder the name of the Church of Rome because hitherto I haue followed the Councell of Trent which hath decreed nothing in this point Therefore the faith of that Church in this point is to bee taken out of the Doctrine commonly receiued amongst them touching it and because there is no Author amongst them fitter to report what that is then Bellarmine I will set downe what he saith of it it is this Holy men may doe such things for Gods sake which they are not bound to doe and these are workes of supererogation de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respondeo non c. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9. 13. The Gâ—gger hath the same thing reported by Mr. Mountagu in his Gagge page 104. in the margin in these words Man by assistance of Gods grace may doe some things counselled and these we call worke of supererogation That hee doth consent vnto this Doctrine of the Church of Rome hee professeth plainely and fully Thus he writeth I willingly subscribe vnto the point of councels Euangelicall Gagge page 103. and further he saith of the definition of workes of supererogation which I haue reported out of him no 1. giuen by his aduersary the Gagger If these were your workes of supererogation and no otherwise I would not contend with you page 104. Hee doth agree with them likewise in explicating and setting downe the nature of a Councell euangelicall as he cals it Bellarmine saith thus of it It is a good worke shewed not commanded it differeth from a Precept in this a Precept bindeth of its owne force a Councell is committed to mans free choyce when a precept is obserued it hath the reward being not obserued it hath punishment but if a Councell bee not obserued it hath no punishment if it bee obserued it hath the greater reward de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. Iust on this manner writeth he Imperious lawes require exact obedience vpon paine of punishment Appeale page 219. A Councell is a mandat not properly but with condition left vnto a mans choyce to doe it or not to doe it page 221. lastly he saith the obedience to Councels procureth reward to him that obeyeth them Gagge page 105. and hee that keepeth them not is without danger of punishment therefore Gagge page 103. A man would thinke by this that hee would not sticke to confesse that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of workes of supererogation but indeed he doth deny it for thus he writeth You call workes of supererogation such as be laid vp in store for imployments the treasure and stocke of the Church to satisfie for other mens offences not the things done as counselled onely these are only titular those are indeed workes of supererogation which you mean but these I deny Gagge page 103. c. I answer this excuse is headlesse what hand ruled his pen when hee wrote thus passeth my skill to iudge he doth heare the Church of Rome with one consent to affirme voluntary workes are workes of supererogation and the Church of England saith the same expresly and in so many words and yet forsooth he will needs beare them both downe they giue voluntary workes the name onely of workes of supererogation but they meant it not But I pray who told him so he nameth no Author for it nor can name I am sure Well he had it by speciall illumination and therefore hee might know their meaning without them and you must beleeue him for such knowledge is certaine and cannot deceiue you Be it so he doth disagree in the name but that will not inferre his disagreement in the thing Hee hath confessed his subscription to Euangelicall Councels that is to voluntary workes as I haue shewed in the former Chapter and that is all which is sought after now we find his agreement with them in the thing let him giue what name he will vnto voluntary workes But he saith It is an errour in Diuinitie not to put a difference betwixt such workes as a man may doe or not doe without guilt of sinne or breach of law and the Papists workes of supererogation If any man not knowing or not considering the state of the question hath otherwise Written or Preached or Taught it was his ignorance or fancie or misunderstanding or misapplying Appeale page 215. I answer in stead of proofes wee haue euill language I will scumme off the froth and examine what hee saith in good sober sadnesse This is the summe of his sentence He that saith voluntary workes in the iudgement of the Church of Rome be workes of supererogation is ignorant or fantasticall Vnto which proposition I may adde this assumption and conclusion But the Church of England saith the Church of
Is a desperate Doctrine These two sentences are not so like as the Hares head and the Goose giblets the one reproues the nature assigned to Predestination and telleth them that Predestination is not such as they say it is The other reproueth men that abuse the Doctrine of Predestination but medleth not with the nature thereof what difference then there is betweene the nature of Predestination and mans abuse of Predestination in the course of his life such difference there is betweene Mr Mountagu and the Booke he speakes of the first that of the second But now let vs suppose the Doctor had said these words Predestination without relation to faith is a desperate Doctrine Then the second branch of his Assumption is likewise false because it saith that speech was not reproued but I finde otherwise in the Booke which reporteth page 43. a speech of his Maiestie that maketh Predestination to be without relation to faith his words be these Predestination depends not vpon any qualities actions or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose Which sentence is contradictory vnto that sentence which Mr. Mountagu saith was condemned as a desperate Doctrine by the Doctor and therefore it is a suffiâ—ient reproofe of his speech His fourth reason I finde Appeale page 72. c. it is on this wise If Predestination without relation to faith bee the Doctrine of the Church of England then should it make a partie with Caluin But it would not make a party with Caluin for that were the next way to bring in his discipline Therefore Predestination without relation to faith is not the Doctrine of the Church of England I answer this pelting stuffe is not worth the viewing all the world knowes that the Church of England doth agree with Caluin in very many things and it must doe so or else it must agree with the Church of Rome in all the points which Caluin reiecteth which are all the decrees of the Councell of Trent a very few excepted If I should say all the Articles and the Homilies agree with Caluin for the maine matters of faith I should say no more then what might be proued Other exceptions might be taken to this argument but I passe by them Thus haue I put an end to this poore stuffe loathsome to the answerer and disgracefull to the disputer Ducklings not Eagles catch Flyes Hitherto we haue hunted a shadow and laboured to catch the winde now he will lay hold on the body and thus he bringeth it The positiue Doctrine of the Church of England is no other but this touching Predestination 1 Sinne came into the world by the Deuill not God 2 Death came by sinne 3 God prepared a Mediator Christ 4 Willed life to euery beleeuer 5 His good pleasure was all men to be saued Gagge page 180. I answer he would conclude from hence thus Therefore our Church doth not teach Predestination to be without relation to faith For the place requires this conclusion as hee that readeth these places may see viz. pag 178. that God c. page 180. the positiue c. page 179. the Church c. p. 181. I nor teach c. Now we haue his reason I will examine the truth of it I answer in his owne words Appeale pag. 57. used in another case The Church of England doth not teach thus touching Predestination and why may I not say so except you shew the contrary or bring me forth a Creed a Cannon a conclusion in being for it in the Church of England But let it bee as you will If this bee all that our Church hath taught of Predestination then it hath said nothing of it for Predestination is a decree or dispositiue act of God will as we haue learned by your selfe No 4. Now these words shew vs from whence sinne came and whither it will what bee the meanes to escape it and it speakes of Gods velleitie or willingnesse vnto mans freedome therefrom but of any positiue act ordering man to the supreame end Mr. Mountagu brings not a word as the doctrine of our Church Besides this I haue the witnesse of one M. Mountagu that bringeth more positiue doctrine from the Church of England then this viz. out of the 17. Article in his Appeale p. 51. and these are his words In the 17. Article the Church speaketh of Election onely 1 That there is a Predestination by God vnto life 2 That it was an act of his from euerlasting 3 That he founded it and resolued for it iâ— the man and Mediator Christ both for the purpose and performance 4 That it is and was of some speciall ones alone elect called forth and reserued in Christ and not generally extended vnto all mankind 5 This purpose of his is like vnto himselfe vnchangeable done according to the Councell of his will Which must needes bee more then the former fiue propositions no 14. for there is neuer a one of these except the third so much as mentioned in those former seeing this Master Mountagu alleadgeth authority and the former M. Mountagu bringeth none this testimonie must bee receiued the former reiected whereby this reason is as poore miserable and lame as the former Therefore I will leaue it in the Spittle-house with them and proceed From this passage alleadged out of the 17. Article he discourseth thus 1 What our Church resolueth touching this is resolued in the 17. Article the very words of that Article being expressed in termes as farre as concerned that decree Appeale p. 58. 2 This is all that I can find touching that purpose and decree of God Appeale p. 52. 3 In all which passage containing Gods decree is not one word touching your absolute decree of God to glorifie man without any regard vnto his faith c. Appeale p. 58. I answer I will not striue about the first and third branches The whole question is about the second wherein he presumeth that His fiue propositions related n o 15. doe containe the whole doctrine of the 17. Article touching the decree of Predestination If it were true I would grant him that our Church doth not teach That Predestination is without relation to finall grace but he presumeth an vntruth The 17 Article hath not all his fiue propositions It presumes the first because it doth shew what Predestination is but affirmes it not it hath not the third nor fift any wayes It hath more by much then you report all which is made euident no 5. and 6. so that I shall not need to spend time to shew it Touching the second branch it selfe I answer it is hardly credible that you did not see more then you report yea what you did see seemes very vncertain for out of your Gag p. 180. you report no 14. the doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in fiâ—e propositions foure of them at least being wholly different and altogether vnlike these and yet you say The positiue doctrine of the Church of England
ignaroes must giberish to him he knowes not what If hee hath read them where was his conscience when he vrged an argument so often answered and so much opposed and which is more when he tendered it barely as a thing granted without so much as one word out of the diuine reuelation to confirme it or to take away those answers which are made to it What will he plead Is Suarez Aluarez and Bellarmine some of his poore Diuines meere Gaglers Blunderers Ramblers c. not worth the answering not worth the regarding the naming If his will bee to shew himselfe ridiculous he may thus answer and to say the very truth his deeds doe thus answer though wee haue not his words for it I might goe on with this inquirie but I content my selfe with this leauing it to the iudgement of the vnderstanding reader Thus haue I applyed the answers of these authors vnto the argument which doth abundantly shew the weaknesse thereof and I might content my selfe with that but I will adde somewhat more which the argument it selfe doth lead vnto This argument set downe no 27. speaketh of Predestination and if it were a decree to giue glory onely and thereby it doth beg the question because that is denyed him by the Church of Rome and ours If he say he takes Predestination to be a decree to giue grace also then this argument must be framed thus Finall perseuering in obedience is the instumentall cause that Peter receiued grace in the euent Therefore without finall perseuering in obedience God did not appoint by Predestination to giue Peter grace The antecedent or first part is denyed by all which liue in the Church of Rome yea euen by them that would haue Predestination to glory to bee vpon the foresight of workes and they must so deny because the Councell of Trent hath decreed sess 6. Preuenting grace is giuen by God man hauing no merits cap. 5. Wee are iustified freely because none of those things which precede Iustification whether faith or workes doe merit iustifying grace it selfe cap. 8. The same thing touching the free giuing of the first Grace wee learne from our owne Church which taketh it from S. Augustine and tendreth it vnto vs in the Sermon of Fasting p. 172. In these words No man doth good workes to receiue grace by his good workes Good workes doe not bring forth grace Grace belongeth to God who doth call vs and then hath he good workes whosoeuer receiueth grace Which sentence is so full and plaine and of such authority that I shall not need to say any more to shew the insufficiency of the Argument therefore here I will end my answer therunto which also must put an end to our Disputation touching this point of Predestination because he doth not offer any further occasion By that which is past it doth appeare that he dissenteth from the Church of England in this point of Predestination and that hee hath nothing of any worth to say for himselfe or against our Church Now wee should discouer with whom hee doth consent in the point for with some he doth consent else it is a priuate fancy peculiar to himselfe With the Church of Rome he doth not consent I take that as certaine therefore he must consent with the Lutherans and Arminians I name them both because both haue shares in the businesse The Lutherans doe vrge this doctrine of Predestination but not very strictly nor as a matter vndoubtedly revealed nor doe they presse it in all the particulars brought by M. Mountagu and therefore it must bee ascribed to Arminius by vs because hee is the man whose voyce was nearest vnto vs hee vrged it with more particulars and vpon greater necessitie then the Lutherans doe he chose rather to see the Country that bred him brought him vp and aduanced him come to vtter ruine rather then hee would hold his peace or retract this sentence of Predestination I forbeare to confirme this by the particular passages written by Arminius Vorstius and other of that side because it would be tedious and without all benefit What hath passed is sufficient to shew hee teacheth falshood and vntruth Therefore here I will end the whole Disputation There be also other points of Faith in his two Bookes which oppose the doctrine of the Church of England and which deserue a reproofe but because these are propounded and handled by him in the first place and their opposition is most dangerous therefore haue I contented my selfe with the refutation of these onely reseruing the rest till some other opportunity CHAP. XXI The Conclusion of the whole Disputation claiming M. Mountagues promise ALthough it hath beene his fashion to spend many lines with much bitternesse and ill language very ill beseeming a man of gravity and a Minister yet in the issue hee promiseth fayre if you will beleeue him writing in these words Let him or any other goe honestly sincerely soberly Scholler-like to worke Let him come home to the points controuerted without Rowling Rambling Rauing ioyne issue instantly with the question where it lyeth I am for him no man more ready more willing more submisse more desirous to goe calmly to work for Gods glory the Churches tranquilitie the good and benefit of my selfe and others Thus farre hee in his Epistle to the Readâ—r set before his Answer to the Gagger neer to the end therof I answer I haue accomplished your desire you inuite to the discussion of the things you haue written I hope you will accept it in good part I haue obserued the course of disputation you haue appointed And because I would not trust mine owne Art altogether therefore haue I followed B. Iewel in his answer to Master Harding To shew your selfe a plaine man you professe further in your answer to the Gaggers Preface toward the end 1 Our faith is to be regulated by the Scriptures 2 Bring mee in any one point or all points to this rule Tye me to it try me there I fall downe and adore it I would not I will not swerue from it 3 The present doubts hang in the Church of England I doe appeale to the publike doctrine thereof let that which is against them on Gods name be branded with error and as error be ignominiously spunged out Let the author be censured as he well deserueth by authority If I be so taken with the fact or euidence be cleare against me or I be conuicted by sufficient witnesse to haue erred thus I will recall and recant whatsoeuer is so exorbitant and further will deale so with my owne writing as they did with their curious bookes Acts 19. 19. Appeale p. 9. I answer I haue performed the condition in the iudgement I hope of euery Reader able to iudge of a disputation I looke for the performance of this your promise if you faile the fault must rest vpon your selfe and so I leaue you to your owne choice But you thinke to escape that and yet
your dealing be not afraid good Reader of all this smoake for thou shalt see it suddenly blowne all to vanity from whence it came Thus hee writeth in his Preface before his Defence no 6. Touching some of the particulars I haue my answer out of the same Bishop too in these words You say we read neither the old writers nor the new but are vtterly ignorant and void of all learning it were a very ambitious and childish vanitie to make vaunts of learning For asmuch as you seeme desirous of the â—ame of great reading ye shall haue the praise and glory of it Mr. Mountagu without contention we will rather say with St. Paul wee know nothing but onely Iesus Christ crucified vpon his crosse yet notwithstanding wee are neither so ignorant but that we are able and haue leasure to read as well the old Doctors and the Fathers of the Church as also your light vnciuill pamflets and blotted papers which God wot in all respects are very new and we are much ashamed of your papers and nouelties to see them with vntruth other vncourteous speech so fully fraughted I answer further you say we haue no learning capacitie or vnderstanding but these are your owne words you haue brought nothing that hath shewed it or that is fit to try whether you say true or not you haue brought some arguments but they are so silly that a child may answer them you please your selfe with some Latine Greeke Poets History Fathers Councells but they serue to no purpose for they neither proue nor disproue any thing in question If you will bring arguments that sauour of vnderstanding or dispute from Latine or Greeke words Poets Historie Fathers Councels in a Logical forme of true Sylogisme then shall you readily find where reading learning capacitie resteth Till then you may vse them and brag of them but he that hath his eyes in his head will say there is no cause You say we are Puritans which you esteeme a reproachfull name but you tell vs not what you meane by it therefore you would faine speake ill but no man can vnderstand you I thinke that name belongs to your selfe rather for a Puritan is hee that is pure in his owne conceit and is not washed from his filthinesse according to the sentence of the holy Ghost Prouerb 30. 12. Now this seemeth to agree to your selfe for you say you haue receiued the earnest of your saluation App. p. 48. Therefore you are pure in your own conceit Now you are not washed froÌ„ your filthiness except your vnmeasurable railings formerly related be no filthinesse If you will say they be not filthinesse then must you resolue vs what Salomon meant when hee said There is a generation whose teeth are as swords and their iaw teeth as kniues Prou. 30. 14. And Dauid when he said Their throat is an open Sepulcher c. Did Salomon and Dauid commend or discommend those of whom they spake You tel vs that Puritans do refuse some of the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England or both Appeale p. 118. and this doth fitly agree to your selfe for in all the points now disputed you reiect the faith of the Church of England and bring vs the Popish faith in stead of it as hath beene euidently declared You tell vs the things obiected against you are collected out of diuers places and layed together for aduantage In both parts you intend to blame the pleadings against you but the first part is against your selfe for Art and plaine dealing required you to set your opinions together An obiection is well made when it is truly made though it be gathered out of many seuered places You meane they are layed together vniustly but the seuerall places out of which they are brought will say that is false diuers sentences brought into one place doe make each other the cleerer vnto vnderstanding to that end are they now layed together and for no other as the reader may find To scatter them into diuers places with the intermission of other things was a good meanes to conceale the snake till a fitter time was offred he that giueth poison must conceale it To gather them together was the labour diligence and faithfulnesse of him that did it He that discouers a hidden euill is more worthy then he that suggesteth that which is overt and lyeth aloft You wold fain Tridentize it so go on hanging hoof against hoofe that I may vse your owne words Appeale p. 270. As the fearfull Hare doth double and redouble her course and intricate her passage to conceale her selfe euen so doe you hee therefore that would find you out must take you where you are to be had seeing you are not wher and how you ought to be You tell vs of the points in question 〈◊〉 are not â—â—gerous Of themselues In the event vnto vs. Because They are scholasticall speculations meerly The author is No fomenter of Faction Schisme A Patriâ—t Reconciler Appeale p. 42. 43. They that thinke not so Make clamors of they know not What. Wherefore Are Franticke fellowes Frighted with Pannicke feares Haue without cause fired the Beacons disturbed the Countrey Esteeme a field of Thistles to be a battell of Pikes Appeale pag. 320. I answer It is no meruaile though you set your whole strength to remoue the suspicion of danger from the points you haue deliuered yea it would be much meruaile to see you doe otherwise for hee that layeth a snare must conceale it least his purpose be frustrated but your labour is spent in vaine a weake sight may see them full of danger That they are dangerous to our eternall estate and of themselues fitted to bring sad euents is manifest for all of them are articles of erronious faith Now an erronious faith is an addition vnto the diuine reuelation threatned by God to bee punished eternally Reuel 22. 18. verse Some of them bee articles of the erronious faith of Rome and that they bee dangerous vnto our saluation wee haue the testimony of Bishop Iewell who saith expresly That they are dangerous to kindle Gods wrath and condemne our soules for euer Apol. part 6. c. 22. diuid 1. And c. 20. diuid 2. he saith vnlesse we leaue them we cannot come to Christ With whom agreeth our reuerend Bishop Carleton in his directions to know the true Church p. 63. 64. For of the Romish faith he saith That it is traps and snares dangerous and tending to mans destruction Your selfe doe no lesse when you say Popery is originall of superstition enemie vnto pietie Appeale p. 321. The particular points whereof wee haue disputed doe say no lesse For if wee must take our faith in all matters of doubt from the sentence of a Councell then can we haue therein no diuine faith and consequently no saluation If a man beleeue that a sinner is iustified from the actuall sinne which he hath committed by a created being that remaineth setled and
Booke will finde If wee receiue these points of Popery hitherto discussed then must we receiue all the rest of the Popish faith for these are no truer then they nor are these receiued by any which doth not receiue them If wee receiue all Popery then wee giue place to the rabble of their Monkes and Friers c. where they are entertained great possessions much goods many people are seuered from the vse of the State and appropriated vnto the vse and benefit of the Pope and State of Rome by which meanes our owne State is much disabled to maintaine it selfe against forraigne opposers and a forraigne State inioyeth a great addition to defend it selfe and to offend yea to subiect ours vnto the will of the Pope and State of Rome which things I doubt not will be confessed on all hands to be no small danger to our State and this shall suffice for this time to shew the dangers that doe perpetually attend vpon this faith of Rome which you perswade vs to receiue You tell vs you are a Patriot equall to the best you shew vs wherein by saying thus I imbrace the totall doctrine and discipline of the Church of England and will maintaine it to bee ancient Catholike Orthodoxe and Apostolicall Appeale page 111. I trust to make good against any and all whosoeuer that the Church of England is so conformable vnto purest antiquity in the best times that none can be named in all points more conformable Appeale page 48. You must giue me leaue to answer hereunto in your owne words which I finde you haue written concerning some viz. You doe conforme onely for preferment hold with the Hare and runne with the Hound Appeale page 111. and 112. you are rotten at the core page 142. your goodly glozings and time-seruing colludings with the State are but like Watermen looking one way rowing another page 43. and 44. Your selfe at least cannot be offended with mee for applying those words of yours vnto your selfe for it is but Iustice to fill you in the same cup you haue filled vnto others Neither may it bee ill taken of any other for you may be of that number notwithstanding this protestation because that I may vse your owne words you must remember All your words are not Gospell Appeale page 272. Therefore vntill I may perceiue that you manifest what you protest by reall practice you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble in the point and would perswade men that you are not to bee distrasted that your selfe may feed fat vpon their folly Appeale page 222. I finde you also writing thus of some Your holy cause you see will not succeed by opposition therefore you come vp and seeme to close with the Church of England in her Doctrine and discipline but indeed you infuse secretly and instill cunningly a forraigne Doctrine pretended craftily to be our Churches so that aâ— length you may winde in forraigne discipline and the rest of forraigne Doctrine Appeale page 43. and 44. If you conceiue thus of others it is like enough you saw it first in your selfe for there is none so suspicious of another as he that is guiltie You know our English Prouerbe The Mother would neuer haue sought her Daughter in the Ouen but that her selfe had beene there first you can apply what I exemplifie to speake in your owne language Appeale page 320. yea it is more then likely that this was your intent For you waue the Doctrine of the Church of England Teach contrary to that which you haue subscribed as you challenge others Appeale page 44. which you would neuer haue done but for some speciall end and no other end can be assigned but this and vnto this end it serueth fitly If I should reason thus The learnedest the most conformable the renowned rewarded c. yea the faith it selfe of the Church of England is for Popery Therefore Popery is the true faith Then euery man will be ready to embrace the faith of Rome and good reason too seeing this testimony wanteth nothing to giue it authority the party himselfe a friend nay more a Brother that hath beene borne bred and brought vp in the confession of the Church of England that hath learned loued admired and proposed to himselfe to follow indeclinable the Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England Appeale page 111. No new vp-start Master in Israel But one that adhereth and consenteth vnto the Apostles and their true successors immediate and mediate Appeale page 45. and 46. The Doctrine of the Church of England is proposed in Synods confirmed by law commanded and established by act of Parliament Appeale page 111. As the qualitie of your person pretence so your outward condition in our State and Church doe serue very fitly to bring in Popery for you are knowne vnto and approued by his sacred Maiesty King Iames as you doe solemnly informe vs in the Preface to your Appeale and in the Booke it selfe page 43. You are beholding vnto and fauoured by men of principall ranke in the gouernement of our Church and common-wealth as wee learne from your Epistle set before your Treatise of the Inuocation of Saints neere to the end thereof You are indeed rewarded with preferments many for number great for value Who would deny his consent vnto Popery when it is brought by a messenger thus accomplished You are a Minister and a Preacher therefore when you bring in Popery you goe compendiously to worke for you are like enough to gaine and draw your Parishioners with you at least to make them more feasable then other waies they would be as yourselfe writes in the third page of your Preface to the Reader set before your Gagge You are a Preacher vnto many congregations therefore you must needes draw the more people after you and they draw others for we see by experience things new and strange stay not alwaies with them that receiue them first Moreouer by Preaching Popery they may be accommodated according vnto the disposition of seuerall men hee that is inclinable thereunto may bee followed seriously plied at all times He that is auerse may bee obserued and delt withall as opportunity is offered Lastly preaching is of greatest efficacie for it commeth vnder the name of Gods ordinance it is more fit to enter into and preuaile vpon the thoughts of man than any other course like as the small raine resâ—eth vpon entreth into and softeneth the earth more then the great and hastie showers By preaching popery may be let in softly without noise slowly without violence like as liquid bodies are distilled by a soft fire being once entred taketh faster hold like vnto a screw that is not heard when it entreth nor can be pulled out when it hath taken hold This course to bring in popery was now requisite for all violence was in vaine no attempt that way could preuaile it made vs more warie and resolued against it like the boisterous winde that causeth a man to lay faster hold vpon his clothes to keepe them about him What disputations haue they had to prevaile against vs for continuance multitude of years for learning and subtlety What deuices haue they vsed to keepe ours from them to conuey theirs vnto vs Cunning counsells to grace it desperate Ianizaries to conuey it into euery Kingdome Prouince diuision familie houshold singular person if it were possible What wars and trecherie haue they omitted the Histories of Wicklife Hus Ziska Henry the second King Iohn and Queene Elizabeth besides many others will shew More of any of these are not needfull nor can be expected yet what haue they gotten haue they won a party vnto their faith or one man to beleeue as they doe Surely this they haue gained enen a garment dyed red in the blood of the Saints and a name but not of the sonnes of Abraham who neuer had the glory of heresie and poison of false doctrine cruelty trechery murder vsurpation Now now therefore is the time when you must change your copie turne ouer a new leafe bethinke your selfe of a new course turne your threatnings into flatterings your loud sound into still voices your long disputations into distilled dropping your enmity into pretended friendship your conioyned armies into seuered corner creepers your armour into Gownes your swords into sithes your bills into mattocks Finally let no voice of warre be heard in your streets Sound and resound lift vp like a trumpet the voice of Peace tune your instruments to make that harmony to bee more delightfull then the sweet Singer of Israel and then perhaps you may gaine him vnto your side whom God hath giuen ouer to beleeue lyes but for the rest they will and alwaies shall haue iust cause to say as we now doe The snare is broken we are escaped thanks be vnto God I might giue satisfaction to euery one of his particular railings for there is sufficient for it but I will not burthen the reader so much This that I haue said is sufficient because these things being thus none of his other bitter invectiues can bee true Though they were true yet doe they make either wholly against him or nothing at all for him I conclude this whole discourse in the words wherein Bishop Iewell concluded his to Master Harding pag. 652. Deceiue not the simple they are bought with price they are the people of God for whom Christ hath shed his blood Your shifts be miserable you trouble your selfe as a Bird in the lyme The more ye stirre the saster ye cleaue the longer ye striue the weaker ye are ye cannot bridle the flowing Seas ye cannot blind the Sunne beames Kicke not still against the spurre Giue vnto the glory of God will ye will ye the truth will conquer God giue vs both humble hearts and the people eyes to see that all flesh may be obedient to his will Amen FINIS
disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
ascribe possibilitie of erring to generall Councels in fundamentalls I answer this argument proues nothing but begs the question in that 1. It takes as granted some points of faith be fundamentall other some are not which is denied him 2. The assumption is as doubtfull as the conclusion The proposition is also false the words of the Article attributeth vnto the church possibility of erring without limitation either indefinite or assigned It saith Generall Councels may erre in things appertaining to God If this proposition be vnderstood to speake not of all but of some things pertaining to God then nothing is determined thereby of certaintie but that may not be granted for that is a delusion no decision The proofe added to the proposition confirmes it not for that proposition is not a limitation of a Councels erring but a proofe that Councels may erre on this wise Councels haue erred Therefore Councels may erre If it be replyed that this reason is not good except erring in the consequent be taken in that sence wherein it is vsed in the Antecedent I rejoynd the argument is good although erring in the antecedent be taken for erring in some things and erring in the consequent be taken for erring in all things because the Church that is not free from error in some points of faith is not free at all The proofe added to the assumption standeth thus That which hath not erred hither to cannot erre hereafter c. But this proposition is manifestly false because freedome from error and infallibilitie in Iudgement is not made by not erring in time past but by a speciall peculiar providence of God which they may want at some other time who in the thing haue not erred in time foregoing His second reason is in p. 124. after this sort If the Article speakes of things pertaining to God and those are not all fundamentalls then it may be vnderstood of things not fundamentall I answer this reason hath the fault that the former had it presumes that points of faith are some fundamentall some not fundamentall which is denied and therefore it begs the question 2. I will grant the distinction for this time and say further the word only must be added to the latter part of this reason otherwise it concludeth nothing to purpose that being added I deny the consequence because the Article speaketh of all things pertaining to God as I haue proved in my answer And I proue further by your own testimony thus If the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doe not meane all but some things then the doctrine of the Church of England is not plaine direct without far-fetched obscure interpretations casie even perspicuous of it selfe fitted for the vse capacitie instruction of the simple and ignorant who are not capable of obscurities But the doctrine of the Church of England is plaine direct c as your selfe doth truly affirme Appeal p. 245. Therefore the Article in saying Councels may erre in things c. doth meane vniversally all things pertaining to God His third reason is in the same p. 124 thus The Article speaketh of debating and discussing I speake of deciding and determining Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the 1. branch of the Antecedent is false Ordeining is deciding and determining The Article speaketh of ordaining Thus it argueth Councels may erre Therefore things ordained by them not taken out of Scripture haue no authoritie Therefore the Article speaketh of deciding and determining His fourth reason is in p. 125. to this effect The Article speaketh of things that are in Controversie I speake of things plainely delivered in Scripture Therefore I dissent not from the Article I answer the words plainly delivered in Scripture must signifie things not in coÌ„troversie That being granted the second branch in the antecedent is false He himselfe other-where delivereth the contrary Those things whereof the Church must Iudge are the things where in according to him the Church is free from error But things in Controversie are those according to him whereof the Church must Iudge See what he saith gagg p. 13. Truth is manifest and confessed more obscure and involved And p. 14. In controverted matters if a question be moved the Church must decide and settle that doubt In plainâ— cases no deciding Iudge shall need but such as are ambiguous must be determined by the Iudge c. Therefore according to him in things in Controversie the Church is free from error and the reason hereof for a full explication of this matter he layeth downe in his Appeale p. 160. in these words There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it Things that are straight and direct and according to that rule confessedly need not application are not commonly brought to be applyed to that rule but things of different or doubtfull standing these need application and are applyed by the perpetuall practice of the Catholike Church And thus haue I ended all the reasons which he bringeth to excuse himselfe from dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in this point which are too weake to excuse him therefore I may safely conclude He doth dissent from the Church of England touching the infallibilitie of the Church Now I proceed to examine whether this proposition be true or not and I will repeat the proposition for helpe of memory and this it is A Councell truely generall in giving sentence of a divinitie question cannot vary from the Scriptures His proofes for it we find set downe in his Appeale p. 123. taken from two places of Scripture the former on this wise They to whom the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. they cannot in giving sentence of a divinitie question vary from the Scriptures But to a Councell truly generall the spirit is promised to lead them into all truth Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore a Councell truly generall in giving sentence of a divinitte question cannot vary from the Scriptures I answer There is no whole part in this argument Not in the proposition which supposeth that These words Ioh. 16. 13. were spoken to some which haue an office to Iudge whether this or that sentence in Divinitie be agreeable to the Scriptures or not But this supposition is of his owne making and hath beene refuted in the last Chapter going before wherein it doth appeare by my answer to him That office was never committed to any Wherefore this argument doth indeed beg but not demonstrate the question For further refutâ—tion thereof I may thus argue If these words were spoken to some that had that office then the Apostles had it For those words were spoken to the Apostles I take as granted But the Apostles had it not for they had the office to reveale the sacred mysteries with which the office in question was nothing fit to stand It cannot be imagined that the Apostles would lay aside that power and authoritie of revealing and
Articles they haue no divine faith because the immediate and formall reason of that their beliefe is the authoritie of the Pope and his Councell whose sentence is humane and not divine for want of a Commission from God for that office as hath beene shewed Chap. 3. His third proofe is comprehended in these words Appeale p. 113. They hold one faith in one Lord into whom they are inserted through one Baptisme I answer this wanteth not obscuritie he seemeth to esteeme himselfe safest when he is least vnderstood I suppose he would say thus The Church of Rome teacheth the same faith which God reveald and hath the same Sacraments which Christ instituted I answer if he were as able to proue as he is readie with confidence to affirme I would grant him the question vpon this onely reason But the spight is he hath no proofe at all and his owne word is not sufficient therefore we are where we were see how handsomely he disputes In the last argument he gaue them agreement in fundamentall points of faith that is to say in some not in all points for all points of faith be not fundamentall himselfe avoucheth Appeale p. 124. In this he giveth them agreement in all points of faith a sodaine change there some not all here all not some The matter it selfe of this argument shall be further handled anon num 13. c. He will supply this want by the authoritie of Ianius who is neither Papist nor Arminian his words are these The Papall Church is a Church according to that it hath which belongeth vnto the definition of a Church I answer it is very doubtfull whether this sentence be truly alledged or not because it neither affirmeth nor denieth any thing of certaintie but let it passe as it is it maketh nothing for you He must say The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church For so say you But of this he hath not a word If you say he supposeth The Church of Rome hath something belonging to the definition of a Church I rejoynd he may so suppose and yet not agree with you for that supposall may be a concession in curtesie and not an affirmation of a truth which two things doe really differ in your owne judgement Appeale p. 14. when it was your owne case Of this judgement I hope you are still now the case doth not concerne your selfe And there is great diffâ—rence between something pertaining to the definition of a Church and the essence whereof you speake for that must signifie part of the essence and may signifie the generall thing wherein the Church doth agree with other societies this must be taken for the specificall and adequate being of the Church Lastly I will willingly grant him the Church of Rome hath something pertaining to the definition of a Church and that it is a Church according to it and this is all he alledgeth out of Iunius yea I will assigne him what that something is viz. It is a company of men on earth which pertaineth to the definitioÌ„ of a Church by the confession of them and our Church The 19. Article sayth the Church is a Congregation of men and so saith Bellarmine de eccle lib. 3. cap. 2. And more then so I will grant him viz. that the Church of Rome is so farre forth a Church that is to say a company of men joyned together in one societie by one coÌ„mon bond but this will profit him nothing as is manifest by the thing it selfe Thus farre all the allegations which he maketh to perswade that the Church of Rome is a true Church haue beene examined and found too weake for his absolute perswasion that it is a true Church to be grounded vpon Wherefore I haue good reason to conclude this point in his owne words Appeal p. 161. If you haue any speciall illumination or assurance by divine revelation or rather strong perswasion through affection much good may it doe you keepe it to your selfe presse it not vpon others To which I adde If you will not be advised but insist vpon so vaine a conceit you do amongst wise men but beate the arre for as much as there is the description of the Church in the Scriptures and the authoritie of the Church of England against you neither doth there want proofe for the same thing amongst the Divines of the Church of England But in stead of many I will name onely two that is your selfe and Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester no Papists Arminians nor Puritans no shallow heads that Jcumme off the surface no novellers vnacquainted with old Learning none of the brethren frantick for the holy Cause but iust to an hayre as your selfe will desire Thus you write The Pope is interessed in that Apostacie which is a departing away from Christ his Kingdome his doctrine and his Scepter Appeal p. 149. 150. It may seeme probable that the Turkish state may at least be assumed into association with the Pope and Papacie in making vp that Antichrist and Antichristian Kingdome or state opposite vnto the state Kingdome of Christ Turcisme opposeth Christ openly by fiery force and Popery is opposite by fraud and guile Appeale p. 158. The Scripture is our absolute rule of faith and manners we consent and agree it is Antichristian to dissent from to reiect that rule and him an Antichrist that doth so or proposeth any thing as to be beleeved against that rule The Pope doth this let him then be an Antichrist in St. Iohns acceptance There are many Antichrists Appeal p. 160. 161. From hence thus I argue 1. That Church which is Antichristian and an Apostata that hath departed from Christ his kingdome doctrine Scepter that is no true Church But according to you the Church of Rome is Antichristian and an Apostata c. For according to you the Pope of Rome is an Antichrist and an Apostata c. And such as the Pope is such is that Church for as much as they receiue their faith from the Decree and determination of the Pope Thus writeth Suarez defide c. tracta 1. disp 5. sect 7. num 6. 9. A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legates and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of faith And this he also there saith is a matter of faith Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church 2. That Church which opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ is not a true Church But according to you the Church of Rome opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ For according to you the Pope Papacie Popery opposeth the Kingdome and state of Christ Therefore according to you the Church of Rome is not a true Church How this sore shall be healed it passeth the skill of all such whose learning exceedeth not the age of Plato It may be he hath some that is of an elder
determination of the Iudge of Controversies in faith p. 54. They teach that men must beleeue nothing but that which the Church teacheth by the Church they meane themselues who are their teachers p. 39. They tell vs that the rule of faith is that which the Church teacheth p. 47. 48. Therefore the Church of Rome hath changed that wherby the Church is knowne to be a Church Vnto these two he bringeth a third to this effect That Church wherein the foundation of the Church is changed ceaseth to be a true Church of Christ But in the Church of Rome the foundation of the church is changed For in it the rule of faith is changed which is the foundation of the Church And the Church is built vpon this foundation that is vpon the faith contained in the Scriptures Therfore the Church of Rome ceaseth to be a true church Vnto this testimony I may adde these three more viz. Doctor Reynolds in his Verses vpon the third conclusion handled in the Schooles Novemb. 3. 1579. Doctor Whitaker in his disputations of the Church quest 6. cap. 1. and Mr Perkins in his Prologue to the Reformed Catholike all which doe avouch our departure from the Church of Rome vpon paine of damnation It may be Mr Mountague will except against these three as incompetent to testifie against him for of the two first thus he saith Doctor Reynolds all his excellencie was in his reading Appeal p. 123. And of Doctor Whitaker he saith that he was a thorow man and an earnest promoter of novell opinions against other learned Divines Appeal p. 71. And of them all three that they were Puritans delighting in contention To which I answer These exceptions may truely be sentenced by Bishop Iewell in his reply vnto Master Hardings answer the 8. Article and the 1. division set downe in these words He as a man overmuch obedient vnto his affections breaketh vp his way with vnsavory and bitter talke and as a Cocke that is well pampered with Garlick before the fight he seeketh to overmatch his fellow rather with ranknesse of breath then with might of body But these Bookes will keepe that credit which was first given them by the principall Doctors of the severall Vniversities who allowed them for Printing and which since they haue gotten by the vse which the Church hath had of them which is sufficient against Mr Mountague whose Bookes were no sooner seene but they had an hundred to detest them for one of our Church which did like them but most of all in as much as they proue this their sentence on this manner by an Argument vsed by the Homilie aforesaid p. 428. That Church whose faith is erronious that must be avoyded But the Church of Rome is a Church whose faith is erronious Therefore the Church of Rome must be avoyded Which argument doth convince so evidently that I presume he will not except against any part thereof but if he doe there is sufficient in Mr Mountague himselfe besides other where to fortifie it against the same Thus he writeth Appeal p. 160. 161. The Scripture is our exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from an reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule From whence I thus argue They that reiect the exact and absolute rule of faith and manners their faith is erronious For Their faith is an aberration from the Scriptures the rule of faith And that aberration is error in points of faith Appeal p. 7. But the Pope that is the Church of Rome doth reiect that rule of faith Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious Secondly thus They whose faith dissenteth from the rule of faith their faith is erronius For Error in points of faith is against the rule of faith Appeal p. 7. But the faith of the Pope that is of the Church of Rome dissenteth from the rule of faith For It proposeth things as to be beleeved against that rule Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is erronious If he reply that all this is to be vnderstood of some points of faith not of all of some part of the rule not of the whole I rejoynd his words are without limitation or distinction thus The Pope doth dissent from and reiect the rule of faith And giue this for proofe namely in that it Proposeth any thing as against that rule Againe faith is one as himselfe truely affirmes Appeal p. 43. and the rule of faith is one as faith it selfe is one These things are evident I need not bring further proofe for them All which being duely considered I doubt not but even Mr Mountague himselfe will giue sentence That The Church of Rome hath not the essence and being of a true Church One thing more in this question must be remembred Thus he writeth Appeal p. 83. This proposition We must for ever vpon paine of damnation dissent from the Church of Rome in all things and haue no peace at all with them Is a strange Bugbeare I answer the sence hereof must be first had before the truth can be judged of By Bugbeare is meant a fiction or pretence vsed vnto Infants to keepe them in awe and they are so vsed by the way of dalliance because Infants haue not the vse of reason and thereby are vncapable of government by meanes that are of a higher nature they that cannot judge of truth nor taste of substance must be led with shews and fed with fancies It may be doubted whether this was his meaning or not perhaps his words are extended beyond his intent may some man say vnto whom I answer he meant to say no lesse then thus and I find it by himselfe In his Preface to the Reader before his Gagg a little after the beginning he bringeth his adversary saying There is no salvation to Protestants which he doth call terrible shawe-fowle to skare poore soules that haue not the facultie of discerning cheese from chalke horrible affrights tâ— put yong children out of their wits that cannot distinguish a visnomie indeed from a visor Where he giues the same sence to shawe-fowle that I giue here to Bugbeare which two words signifie the same thing according to himselfe in the place last alledged And thus stands the case with the Church of England and these graue and learned men whose words and proofes I haue alledged and all other of our Church to whom they haue written in this sentence of Maister Mountague But this is an imputation more odious then humane eares can beare with Patience What Is our Church a dallier with her children and that in a matter in nature so high Of consequence so great Doth shee sport her selfe befoole her children with Gods Word and their salvation Are all her children such silly Infants that for want of true reason must be governed by shadows No marvaile though his Diocesan fares no better where his Mother speeds so ill
agreement between the Church of Rome and the Church of England but between some professors of Divinitie on either side then all his labour is in vaine for the question he ought to proue is touching the agreement not of private opinions in the Churches but of the Churches themselues which two differ much as himselfe affirmeth Appeal p. 134. This being publike and authorised that not so and he professeth in his Epistle before his Appeale his resolution is to leaue private opinions as Irchius to shift for themselues and defend the doctrine of our Church publikely and vniversally resolved on but according to his words alledged that is not his intent therefore all this argument is one of his Ireehius necessary to be disbanded and sent away to shift for it selfe that our Mother the Church be no more troubled with it yea to be sent as a vagabond to the parish where it last dwelt not suffered to passe without due correction and is his owne advice in his said Epistle before his Appeal But I will suppose that he speakes of the agreement of the Churches themselues and answer accordingly The antecedent is false some of these that he nameth on the part of the Church of England be strangers We are not bound vnto them no Law directeth vs our Church doth not compell vs to be bound vnto them which is his owne plea Appeal p. 70. Those of our Church whose agreement he alledgeth are much iniured by him It is notoriously false that he saith They are as farre from agreeing with the Church of Rome in the point of free-will as Maister Mountague is from As I can and will most evidently declare if need be but there is no place for that now for it is besides the present question The consequence is also false these men you name of our church are not the church of England no more then one handfull is the whole harvest a few trees the whole Forrest neither is their doctrine the doctrine of the Church of England for her doctrine is proposed in Synods confirmed by Law commanded and established by Act of Parliament as appeares by your owne description Appeal p. 111. If that be so I yeeld If that be not so why doe you inferre our Churches agreement from their agreement These sores will not be healed with your owne protestations see your disputation I examined the question with diligence That they agree is my confirmed thoughts Therefore they doe agree and that agreement is the agreement of the Church of England Thus haue we done with the Vanguard the maine battell of this disputation the Rere approacheth next in this order They that doe not acknowledge this agreement 1. Doe not reade so much as their owne Protestant Writers 2. In their Pulpits they brawle at the shaddow of their owne fancies 3. Abuse the simple Credulitie of the vnlearned 4. Make themselues ridiculous to the Papists 5. Harden the Papists in their superstition 6. Mistake ignorantly that which they doe not vnderstand 7. Traduce confidently and virulently Appeal p. 88. I answer I come to dispute therefore I will speake herevnto so farre as it concernes the matter in hand I list not to change words with him though perhaps I could pay him with interest therefore to the point All those heavie and bitter accusations are not given absolutely but with reference vnto and inference vpon the agreement of the Church of England with the Church of Rome in the point of Free-will if he hath proved that he thinkes he may affirme these Whether he hath done that or no I will leaue to the judgement I will not say of him that is of the meanest capacitie but of Mr Mountague himselfe who must giue sentence against his owne proofe or els vndergoe the heavie sentence of all men that shall read my answer What I might answer to the rest I am not farre to seeke but because it doth tend to strife and not to edification therfore I hold my peace God is the reprover of such evill language and revenger of such wrongs to whom I leaue it and proceed to that which remaines appertaining to this argument which I find thus written If you with your new learning for old you haue little or none can teach me more than yet I know I will yeeld and thanke you for such instructions Appeal p. 90. I answer What is become of Mr Mountague his disputing What is become of his Logick or where was his Caution Why man Oh he had to doe with poore Divines silly men of no performance He might say what he would they must take it for good therefore he put this sentence vpon them of purpose to gull them and it seems so in very deed for it doth neither affirme noâ— deny proue nor disproue but because every drop of old learning is honorable as age it selfe is 〈◊〉 will make the bâ—st of it If an Assumption and a Conclusion be added we shall know his â—rrand which he may yea must doe one of these three wayes 1. But I will not yeeld nor thanke you for such instructions Therefore you cannot teach me more then yet â— know Or after this sort 2. But you cannot teach me more then yet I know For Your learning is new old you haue little or none And mine is old for the course of my studies was never addressed to moderne Epitomizers I went to inquire of the dayes of old and hitherto I haue not repented me of it Appeal p. 11. Therefore I will not yeeld c. I may dispute also from hence a third way Thus 3. But you can teach me more than yet I know Therefore I will yeeld and thanke you for such instructions If he will dispute the first way the Syllogisme is true but every boy in the Schools will laugh at him for the assumption is folly and the consequence of the proposition is madnesse no man well in his wits would say I will not yeeld therefore you cannot teach If he disputeth in the second manner his Syllogisme is false and concludes nothing every poore Sophister knows that But in this manner he must be vnderstood for his proofes doe lie directly for the confirmation of this assumption and cannot otherwise be applyed But let it be as he will for the forme the assumption is a blast of vaine-glory the answer is readie Let him that putteth off his armour boast and not he that putteth it on If you had lead Causabon in triumph I would haue advised you to brag of glory and stay at home but because you haue not I come not so farre The confirmation of your assumption is an apple of the same tree but the best is if you touch it it falls to powder But I pray tell me how doe you know all their learning is new haue they no bookes of the old Haue they no guts in their braines to make vse of such bookes no tongues in their heads to impart their learning to others Or doe you
know they haue none by any speciall testimony from their own mouths or your owne illumination Is it true indeed is your learning all old Haue you ingrost all the books thereof Does wit keepe her Common-wealth in your breast Then happie man are you but thrice vnhappie the world from whom the old learning is sequestred and that into a corner yea into a close corner out of which it cannot get I am sure yet it hath not gotten I might goe on to shew the insufficiency if not folly of this Confirmation of your Assumption but I proceed to the next If you will dispute in the third sort you make a true Syllogisme but then behold your staydnes a man of confirmed resolution I will warrant you He change no such matter even now you found him triumphing in the victory now you find him Capitulating vpon conditions of peace Even now you found him insulting over his captivated adversary now you see him creeping and fawning vnto him over whom he insulted and doe you know what manner of one he is to whom he speaketh If you doe not he will tell you and you must beleeue him for old learning cannot deceiue you this he is A poore Divine short sighted slenderly travelled He knowes Fenners divinitie if you put him out of that he is as blind as a Beetle c. But howsoever the game goeth this he saith and tie him to his word you shall find him either better or worse then you make of him If you will teach me I will yeeld and thanke you too And because you shall see he is not in jest he repeats his promise againe with an addition Appeal p. 95. in these words If you can make it appeare that there is any such materiall difference between the Church of Rome in the point of free-will and the Church of England then I will turne over a new leafe euen in this Article opposing the church of Rome as farre as any c. I answer it must be here observed that he confesseth his agreement with the Church of Rome els vnto what can he yeeld What leafe can he turne over How can he oppose the Church of Rome in this Article of Free-will more then he does now So that he cannot hereafter deny that he agrees with it in this point of Free-will I accept of your offer I looke for your performance when you haue received the condition which I now tender vnto you In the first place I will set downe what the Church of Rome meaneth by the word Grace so often vsed in this and the other questions following which the Reader must obserue because the knowledge thereof doth serue abundantly to the vnderstanding of the present question of Free-will set downe and disputed in the 7 and 8. Chapters so doth it also serue no lesse for the vnderstanding of the question of Iustification in the 9. and 10. Chapters and of the question of Falling from grace in the 11. and 12. Chapters so as he that doth not vnderstand and obserue what they say touching Grace shall hardly know what is true or false in these quâ—stions The sence of that word Grace we may â—ake from Thomas who hath described it 1. 2. q. 110. art 1. C. by 4 properties viz. 1. It is a certain supernaturall thing 2. It is the gift of God 3. It is in man 4. It draweth man aboue the condition of his nature vnto the participation of the divine good Now that this Grace might be the more distinctly knowne he doth divide it 1. 2. q. 111. ar 2. C. Into actuall and habituall he calleth it actuall because it moueth mans mind vnto good he calleth it habituall because it remaineth in man by the way of a forme and is the beginning of all supernaturall actions I say this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome because it is received by all their learned and rejected by none of them yea the Councell of Trent hath it sess 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. where it speaketh of Iustification it selfe and the preparations therevnto The doctrine of the Church of Rome in the point of the concurring of Gods grace and mans will in the conversion of a sinner vnto God is comprehended in these 15. propositions 1. Grace signifies a helpe comming from God a created being supernaturall to man remaining in him leading him vnto eternall life 2. Grace is either actuall or habituall this doth finish mans sanctitie that begins and continues it by degreeâ— vnto the finishing of sanctitie and is called a preparation thereto 3. Actuall grace is preventing exciting operating all of them expressing the first motioÌ„ of grace And subsequent adiuvating cooperating all these expressing a second motion of grace 4. The preparation to sanctitie consisteth in certaine actions viz. 1. faith 2. feare 3. hope 4. loue begun 5. hatred of sinne 6. contrition 7. purpose of a new life 5. Vnto these prepratory actions grace and mans will doth concurre 6. Grace preventing c. doth worke therevnto without mans will it being onely passiue moved and not a mover 7. By grace preventing c. mans will is made able to be willing vnto the doing of those prepratory acts if it will 8. Vnto the actuall doing of those prepratory acts there is required an assent purpose censent resolution or determination of the will before it be applyed vnto the working of them actually and in the thing 9. Grace cooperating c. worketh not without the concurrence of mans will 10. Grace cooperating c. standeth ready to ioyne with the will of him that is prevented by grace Suarez opusc 7. num 43. opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. num 10. 11. Grace cooperating c. doth concurre with mans will in case it consenteth resolveth and determineth that it will beleeue feare hope c. before it be applyed vnto actuall working of them In case where it doth not so consent c. grace doth doth not cooperate 12. The actions of faith feare hope c. are produced by the ioynt concurrence of mans will and grace cooperating 13. Vpon the producing of faith feare hope c. the habit of grace is immediately infused 14. The infusion of the habit doth follow the said actions infallibly in the event 15. That infallibilitie floweth from the ordinance of God and the disposition that man hath therevnto by the doing of the said actions It may be some will require me to proue these propositions to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome I answer I am not to seeke for that I am readie to doe it vpon the least call but here I forbeare it because it is familiarly knowne to be theirs so as the proofes would be needlesse and tedious therefore I proceed in my Course The point of Free-will in question concerneth the 8. proposition the reason of the doubt ariseth thus If mans will must assent resolue determine to beleeue c. before it be applyed to actuall beleeving c. And grace
man able to consent if he will and cooperating grace worketh nothing but where man hath consented and is ready to joyne in the worke with it But Mr Mountague sayth vnto the worke of our salvation we haue received grace preventing cooperating Appeal p. 94. 104. And doth no where acknowledge any other Yea more then so the next worker vnto preventing grace according to him is man himselfe gagg p. 110. From whence doth follow that in his judgement mans will it selfe is the first roote or foundation of our supernaturall consent If he answer he giveth to grace the power of sustaining and vpholding Appeal p. 94. I reply this helpeth not the matter for to sustaine is onely to preserue man in his being and also it belongeth to Gods generall providence he doth so to all creatures but we speake of his speciall providence ordering man vnto eternall life If he say he ioyneth the assistance of preventing grace vnto mans will I reply this is to as little purpose as the former for the assistance of that grace is inspiring enlightning exciting as himselfe yeeldeth Appeal p. 94. and no more as all men doe confesse which belongeth to the vnderstanding onely it extendeth not to the will Besides although it did extend to the will it can be first no roote to send forth that supernaturall consent vnlesse it doth determine the will vnto one object and make it not onely able to will if it will but also to will actually in the thing so taking away the indifferency of the will that indeed and in the thing it becomes a consenter and hath not libertie to divert the vse of his facultie therefrom but this he will deny and doth seeme to doe so Appeal p. 94. I say this is proper to him because the Councell of Trent addeth adiuvating grace vnto these and saith Man doth prepare himselfe by exciting and adiuvating grace which is much lesse then Mr Mountague sayth and beareth a construction farre more favourable then his doth in the vnderstanding of the Dominicans as they that read them doe know see Alvares de Aux disp 95. num 3. disp 99. 2 ◠conclusio In the next place the doctrine of the Church of England set downe also in the last Chapter must be compared with the same doctrine of the Church of Rome and Mr. Mountague that the consent and difference may be apparent The Church of England doth fully consent with the Church of Rome in the doctrine thereof set downe in this Chapter num 5. So farre as it concerneth the concurrence of grace and mans will in our sanctification and the markes thereof called eliciated c. imperated in respect that they flow from the inward sanctifying grace and are wrought outwardly by the choice command of the will Or by necessary consequution and supposition The onely difference lyeth in the doubt propounded num 7. and in the libertie of mans will taught by the Church of Rome as aforesaid for the resolving of that doubt Now the Church of England satisfieth that doubt on this wise The Predestinate to life be called by Gods spirit They through grace obey that calling Arti 17. vnto which it doth dispose them Homilie pag. 456. Which is all one as if it had said They through grace and the disposing thereof doe consent resolue determine c. to beleeue feare hope c. For thereunto by grace or Gods spirit is man called and disposed In which is also implyed that The eliciated act of Consenting c. is not free man cannot at the instant of eliciating that act reiect grace and dissent from the Calling thereof Which sentence is inferred on this wise Every act so wrought by Gods spirit as mans will is obedient thereto and disposed thereby is not free For The operation of grace or Gods spirit is determined to one But mans consenting which is obedience to the call of grace c. is an Act so wrought by Gods grace So sayth the Article and Homilie Therefore the act of consenting is not free What it doth giue to mans will our Church giueth to grace that act which it maketh free our Church maketh necessary In this doctrine and inference therefrom the Church of Englād doth directly oppose the faith of the church of Rome in such expresse and manifest sort as hereafter there can no doubt be made whether it doth dissent therefrom or no or wherein that dissent should lie so that now nothing remaineth but that Mr Mountague should oppose the Church of Rome according to his promise set downe num 5. But me-thinkes I heare him say this difference is not materiall it importeth not any thing worthy of difference and dissent but proceedeth from minds transported with faction therefore I am not yet tyed vnto that promise I answer he seemeth indeed to attribute the difference and opposition to the Church of Rome in this point of free-will to arise from no other ground but faction Appeal p. 84. c. But altogether vntruly for the Church of England holdeth not a faction against the Church of Rome but hath made a separation for the avoyding of damnation as hath beene declared Chapter 6. num 6. Neither was shee so ignorant as to take a shadow in stead of a substance nor of such an idle head solemnly to determine and decree matters of no moment to be matter of faith But if any man should be of that ill mind that in any thing he could thinke so of her yet in this point he could not doe so for this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous therefore for it alone let the matter it selfe be what it will be must shee be opposed to the vttermost because such a faith is an addition vnto the Word of God threatned to be punished by eternall damnation The matter it selfe is also of great moment in it selfe Our Church doth giue all the honour of our salvation in the event in the manner of working vnto God theirs doth devide it between God and man and giues onely this honour to God that he maketh man 1. able to begin to tread in the way vnto salvation and 2. supplyes mans defects and joynes with him in the progresse it selfe but he leaveth vnto man and the inbred libertie that is in the created facultie of his will to begin and produce the first act or to make voyd the beginning and possibilitie alreadie wrought by grace and to prevent reiect and forestall the offer and operation of the second supply and power of grace regulating both the first and second worke of grace If man will consent vnto obey the first worke of grace then the second does joyne with him and therupon he goeth on indeed in the way to heaven If man refuseth to consent vnto and obey the first worke of grace then the whole worke thereof ceaseth comes to nothing and the work of the second grace never commeth on beginneth not at all The worke of mans
salvation ceaseth he is where he was as if grace had never wrought vpon him Now that this is iniurious vnto God is so manifest that it needs not be proved seeing the greatest share of mans abilitie to doe those things that shall lead him to heaven is given to man himselfe the lesser vnto God That man may be saved it is of God who beginneth and joyneth with man vnto the doing of that which he could not doe of himselfe But that this power is brought vnto act is attributed to man himselfe and the onely libertie of his own will Grace doth nothing by any effectuall efficiency vpon the will determining the same to God or restraining it from the contrary To conclude seeing that I haue performed the condition of your promise at num 5. If you can make it appeare c. I doe now expect the performance of your promise which you made in these words I will 1. yeeld 2. Thanke you for your instructions 3. Turne over a new leafe 4. Oppose the Church of Rome in this Article as farre as any Every honest man will be as good as his word and so I hope will you In the last place those 10. propositions taught by Mr Mountague and set downe in Chapter 7. must be examined whether they be true or no. The first of them begins thus Free-will is in vs subsisting not in Title onely This proposition in the termes wherein it lyeth is true for by the facultie of the will and the electiue and free power thereof man is really distinguished from all other creatures What shall be said to it in his sence shall be declared num 16. The second beginneth thus Free-will is a power c. The first branch of this descriptiō of free-will is true and cannot be denyed The second branch that placeth it in a facultie of doing freely and in an absolute dominion over his own actions c. is vtterly denyed by reason he is not able to proue it He bestirres himselfe to proue the first branch of his description or the first proposition according as he will be vnderstood by experience and the authoritie of Scot. Appeal p. 99. But of this second branch he hath not a word which argues he can bring none for it seeing this doth need it more then that Secondly if man hath this freedome and dominiō then God hath lesse charge providence and government over the actions of men then over any other created effects for in them God is the onely principall efficient of the worke they are instruments to worke in subordination vnto and by the force of him But man is hereby made a principall efficient of his workes superior or at least equall vnto God by giving vnto him freedome and absolute dominion over himselfe to doe as he will God made man and gaue him his being he yeeldeth him his concourse whereby he doth sustaine him in his being All this while God is no efficient of mans actions except very remotely Man by his being hath a dominion over himselfe and freedome to doe as he will hereby he is an efficient next and principall vnto his owne actions if not the onely efficient for mans actions haue relation to the force of man in the doing of them but they haue no relation vnto God at all The effect may say by mans power I had my being and by Gods power man had his being But it may not be granted that God hath no providence over mans actions or lesse providence then over the actions of other creatures for the Scripture is plaine and full to the contrary Thirdly there is no necessitie why this freedome and dominion should be given to the will for as much as the properties given to the will in the other part of the description is enough to make it a free facultie Which I say not of my selfe I learne it from Suarez opusc 1. cap. 1. num 2. And he sayth that many graue and ancient Divines yea Thomas and some of the Fathers are of that Iudgement At least Mr Mountague ought to cōtent himselfe with that libertie of the will and not to striue for this dominiō because the church of Rome doth forbeare to call that by the name of free-will least it should agree in manner of speaking with the hereticks of this time as Suarez avoucheth in the place last alledged The third proposition hath these words That libertie was c. I answer If by libertie you meane the vse of the facultie in supernaturall actions then the proposition is false for man by sinne lost grace as you truely teach gagg p. 108. And without grace mans will is not capable of doing supernaturall actions which for their essence first and specificall nature are beyond the abilitie of the force of the Created facultie and which cannot be done without the grace of God as Suarez teacheth opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 1. num 1. 2. 3. And proveth cap. 15. num 20. And in this sence we must vnderstand those Divines which teach the losse of free-will by Adams sinne Therefore the Councell of Trent and Mr Mountague with it pursue their owne shadow when they decreed as against an adversary when indeed they had none Which is further confirmed thus If libertie be taken to signifie the facultie it selfe then that third proposition is granted and that vpon the same reason himselfe alledgeth out of the Councell of Trent gagg p. 108. Adam by sinne lost not his nature The fourth fift and sixt propositions containe thus much Mans free facultie and the free vse thereof is in him that hath grace I answer the free facultie and grace are both together in one man and so farre this proposition is true 2. If the vse of that free facultie be committed vnto the dominion and dispose of the will it selfe then the proposition is false It can never be proved that the vse of the free facultie of the will is left vnto the dispose and dominiō of the will it selfe but the dominion and dispose thereof is reserved vnto the Lord God and he sayth no lesse when he promised to take away the stony heart and giue a heart of flesh and to imprint his lawes therin Let Mr Mountague shew where God saith to a man prevented by grace I haue made thee able to doe holy workes if thou wilt I commit thy selfe vnto thy selfe goe forward or backward as thou wilt there I will rest I will take no further care of thee nor haue no further command over thee but this cannot be done therefore I may conclude the proposition thus vnderstood and so he doth vnderstand it is false But if the vse of the free facultie be committed vnto the Lord God to dispose of as he please so as mans obedience vnto grace that calleth be given to grace as the Church of England speaketh Arti 17. and the entitie of mans nature be vsed by grace onely as an instrument thereunto then I grant this proposition is true The
vse of the free facultie is in him which hath grace But in this sence he cannot vnderstand it for then mans actions cannot be so free as he pretendeth in the seventh and eighth propositions following In this sence free-will is meerly titular having a name without the thing as we vse to speake when a man inioyeth a thing but hath no vse of it and in this sence our Divines haue sayd true who affirme mans freewill is in title onely so also is it most truly affirmed of them that say mans will is a serving not a free-will The seventh and eight proposition containeth thus much He that assenteth c. assenteth freely and can deny his assent if he will c. The word can in this proposition doth signifie a power of vsing the free facultie with indifferency in the very instant in which a man doth worke and so Suarez doth vnderstand it opusc 1. lib. 1. cap. 1. num 8. And so must the Councell of Trent be vnderstood sess 6. cap. 5. For all other senses thereof are violent and extorted not agreeing with the phrase vsed by the Councell of Trent nor their intent in decreeing If Mr Mountague can proue this let him take all for me I will not oppose the Councell of Trent and himselfe a Disciple thereof in this question of free-will If he cannot proue it why doth he put himselfe into Gods seat by intruding and vrging Articles of faith I am out of doubt he cannot proue it for Suarez hath attempted many things and heau'd at it with both his shoulders but all in vaine it may be Suarez hath no old learning nor Logick so good as Ramus taught in Cambridge no Metaphysicks at all but is ignorant in this questiō He could Preach Lecture brawle and prattle a little in a Pulpit but dispute he could not set him to an argument and you breake his braines but be it knowne vnto you all these things are otherwise with Maister Mountague therefore what Suarez could not he can doe and that you shall see in his gagg p. 112. Thus he disputeth In Mathew 23. and 37. there is an opposition of mans wilfulnesse vnto Gods will God would Iudah would not Therefore freely men renounce the Calling of grace and freely runne I answer the last branch of the conclusion which speaketh of running with Gods grace cannot follow vpon the Antecedent because mans will in sinfull acts is an efficient after a different sort and in another manner then it is in supernaturall actions In them it is a principall efficient that is sinneth of it selfe in these it is a subordinate efficient as your selfe teach Appeal p. 94. therefore sinne doth flow from the will one wayes and supernaturall actions another The first branch in the conclusion doth not follow vpon the Antecedent which hath not a word of freedome libertie or dominion in resisting but barely chargeth them with the eliciated act of resisting If it be replyed that resisting is an act of the will and every act of the will hath that freedome and dominion I rejoynd this reply is refuted already num 14. Therefore it comes too late to take away my answer The Antecedent by the word Call doth vnderstand the Calling of God and the inward calling by grace otherwise there can be no shew of goodnesse in the consequence If you would haue vs beleeue that our Saviour did speake of that kind of calling you ought to haue proved it because it may be vnderstood of the outward calling by the Ministery of our Saviour but because you haue not proved it your argument at the vpshot is resolved into your owne authoritie and so is of no worth He saith in his gagg p. 112. that many other places of Scripture doe serue this purpose but he does not name nor vrge any in particular therefore they can receiue no answer He hath two other Arguments by collection and a third from Acts the 7. 51. the words wherof be these Appeal pag. 89. c. You resist the holy Ghost In this argument he raiseth his confidence because the very word resist is vsed there I answer a poore foundation for confidence It hath the same fault the former had it affirmeth of resisting simply our question is of freedome in resisting so it is nothing to the purpose You vnderstand it of the work of grace in the soule but you proue it not it may be vnderstood of their resisting of the outward Preaching of the Gospell therefore we haue your owne authoritie and no more we haue no reason to thinke that God inwardly enlightned c. all these persons that are sayd to resist the holy Ghost The next concludeth thus In whom there is concupiscence he may resist and rebell against the law of the spirit But in a man regenerate there is concupiscence Therefore a regenerate man may resist the spirit of God I answer This conclusion is nothing to the purpose for our question is of the preparation vnto the habit and freedome in resisting but this conclusion is of a man habituated and of resisting simply If it be vnderstood of resisting freely then the proposition is false For Concupiscence hath nothing to doe with freedome of will this is a perfection given by Creation that is a defection procured by sinne His last Argument is in these words If a man iustified may fall away from grace then he may resist the grace of God offered But the first is the doctrine of the Church of England Therefore a iustified man may resist the grace of God offered I answer this conclusion hath the very same fault which the former had Besides it sayth grace is offered to a justified man how that can be true himselfe must declare for a justified man hath grace already vnto such a man grace cannot be offered The consequence of the proposition is naught losing of grace hath no affinitie with resisting of grace that signifies the absence of a thing inioyed this the repelling thrusting backe of a thing offered but not received The assumption is also false as shall be proved cap. 12. His ninth proposition sayth Man being drawne c. By mans running he seems to vnderstand a running by the force of the created faculty for the words wil beare that sence and he sayth further in the same proposition man doth run as his owne agillitie is he sayth further gagg p. 108. the whole question in the point of free-will is concerning the force of the created facultie In this sence that ninth proposition is false and to be detested It seemes he perceived thus much therfore in his Appeal p. 91. 94. he labours to cure that vlcer by saying Supernaturall actions are true and reall operations of mans soule but the soule is elevated actuated to that height by grace of which it is that mans will is a subordinate agent vnto grace Which declaration comes very short therefore I will adde a passage in Suarez which doth expresse the same
full Iustification 1. Sermon of salvation a little after the beginning There is nothing vpon the behalfe of man concerning his Iustification but onely a true and liuely faith 1. Sermon of Salvation a little before the end CHAP. X. The Doctrine deliuered in the former Chapter is argued THere be three things in it inquirable 1 Whether this proposition A sinners Iustification consisteth also in grace infused be true or not 2 Whether that same proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether it dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue set downe Mr. Mountagu his doctrine touching this point which containeth many propositions and because it might appeare how farre he agreeth with the Church of Rome I bring but one of them to be disputed because if this be foūd false against the doctrine of the Church of England then all the rest will be found false likewise and I desire to contract the disputation vnto the narrowest scantling That that first proposition is false doth manifestly appeare by the answers made vnto the disputations of Thomas Vega Soto Bellarmine Suarez Vasques and others that doe maintaine the same To declare it in this disputation to be false it is needlesse because there is nothing brought to proue it That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in euery one of his propositions is manifest to the full The reading of the doctrine of the Church of Rome set downe also in the former Chapter will shew it And that not onely in the Iustice that doth concurre vnto Iustification and all other things which depend thereupon but also in the nature and being of the remission of sinnes as shal be declared no. 23 c. Which must be obserued because it is a matter of great importance it is little obserued and maketh vp his agreement with them and his disagreement with the Church of England in euery part and parcell of this point teaching in all things as they doe in nothing as the Courch of England doth That he doth disagree from the Church of England the very reading of the doctrine of them both set downe in the last Chapter will declare Our Church placeth our whole Iustice and adequate nature of Iustification in remission of sinnes he placeth it also in grace infused It maketh remission of sinnes one thing he another as shall bee shewed hereafter no. 26. c. Notwithstanding all which euidence he laboureth in his Appeale pag. 168. and 188. to perswade the world that He consenteth not with the Church of Rome nor dissenteth from the Church of England But all his labour is in vaine the contradictory will proue true as this discourse will declare He pleadeth for himselfe two things First by grace infused hee meant and intended onely concommitanter that is grace concurreth with remission of sins in a iustified man pag. 168. 169. 170. Secondly in that description hee went not punctually to worke but described Iustification at large for that act of God of remission of sins and the necessary and immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that Appeale pag. 172. 178. He chargeth such as do not vnderstand that proposition in this sense with ignorant or wilfull mistaking his meaning or obstinate refusall of satisfaction Appeale pag. 168. 172. I answer All this is a faire shew put vpon a foule cause a meere pretence without shew of truth I will make it appeare first by my answers to the argumēts he brings to proue hee meant thus And then by proofes from the things themselues This was not his intent but his words must be vnderstood as they lie without interpretation His first argument p. 168. is to this effect I did attribute grace infused to Iustification secondarily Therfore I intēded grace infused is in a iustified man I answer This reason is reasonlesse There is no shew in the Consequence the word secondarily cannot lead your Reader to thinke you meant so neither doe you shew how it should Againe your owne words doe proue you meant not that by the word secondarily but that grace infused doth constitute Iustification in a second notion For if Iustification be a motion between two termes the one of sinne wherein a man was the other of grace whereto a man is brought and that is the first this the second then grace doth constitute Iustification in a second notion but you teach the first Gagge pag. 143. and 141. therefore you must be vnderstood to meane the last In the next place he telleth vs that his purpose was to let the Papist know that we taught that a man iustified is sanctified also I answer This proueth not that hee meant to say that grace infused is in a man that is iustified but supposeth that he did meane so and sheweth why hee did meane so therefore it is nothing to the purpose Besides it is vtterly false he had no purpose to say any such thing for the question then in hand was whether faith only doth iustifie which could not yeeld him any occasion to say Grace was in a iustified man they being two things euery way distinct and without the shew of affinity Againe neuer any Papist liuing did write or say that we denie a iustified man to be sanctified also therefore you had no occasion thus to say In the last place pag. 171. he hath these words If a iustified man bee also sanctified then might I allow one common word to containe expresse both the parts I answer 1. This supposeth he meant as hee pretendeth sheweth the reason why hee comprehended two things distinct in nature vnder one name but proues not that hee meant to say as hee pretendeth 2. He bestoweth much labour and spares for no cost to proue the first part of this reason but to no purpose for that was neuer denyed by any man in the Church of England nor in any other Church that ioyneth in faith with it But the consequence is vtterly false for these two parts are not essentiall vnto that whole which you call Iustification Therefore when you make one word to containe thē both the sentēce is vntrue disagreeable to art and a monster in nature He is vnskilfull that puts a childs-shooe vpon the foot of Hercules that addeth to the statue of a man the limmes of a beast and iust so doe you in this place if you comprehend remission of sins and sanctification vnder the name of Iustification And this is his whole plea touching the first part of his excuse and this too much too for of three things two of them are wholy besides the matter and voyd of truth in themselues the third disproued by his owne plaine testimony In the behalfe of the second part of his excuse hee saith page 172. Iustification is taken in Scripture strictly for remission of sinnes and largely for that act of God and the necessary immediate concomitance vnto and consequence vpon that c and the like doth Caluine Perkins Beza I
life as vntruly and vnreasonably as the former for these three are really distinct and therefore cannot concurre ioyntly together vnto the primary and formall being of Iustification Indeede esteeming righteous is an act of GODS vnderstanding and called Intuitiue knowledge which supposeth the thing already in being Iustification is the act of Gods will from whence it receiueth being Acceptation to life signifies an act of God willing eternall life vnto man as Vasquez hath truely obserued which belongs to Predestination and not to Iustification Lastly Iustification is a motion from one positiue to another But Esteeming righteous and Accepting to life is not such therefore not essentiall to Iustification He doth father this confusednesse vpon other men and expresly nameth Mr. Perkins for one Appeale page 174. but it will not excuse him for Mr. Perkins writ a comment as himselfe there alledgeth wherein it was meet for him to vse amplifications for cleerenesse and vnmeet to be tyed vnto the exact vse of Art because that is obscure but Mountagu is a Disputer and therefore must auoid stragling Besides Mr. Mountagu despiseth Mr. Perkins with no small degree of scorne as is manifest by what he writeth of him in his Appeale page 270. therefore it is plaine in this description he was not guided by Mr. Perkins his authority Wee may conclude this Description is his owne it hath not Mr. Perkins for shelter 6 Those superfluities being pared off your sentence is this Iustification is remission of sinnes You doe not beleeue that Iustification is remission of sinnes for if you doe then doe you not beleeue that there is an increase and augmentation of Iustification by the increase and accesse of Gods grace for remission of sinnes admits no increase and augmentation much lesse by a new accesse of Gods grace which appertaineth to Sanctification and not to Iustification But you doe beleeue the consequent and doe professe it in your Appeale page 168. 169. If it be answered remission of sinnes is increased by daily receiuing remission of new sinnes and by increase of grace and good deedes viz. by declaring him to bee iust that is already made iust In which sort hee writeth Appeale page 162. 169. 197. I reply this answer doth not take away the force of my argument for it is auowed onely vpon his owne word hee doth not proue it to bee so nor shew how it can bee thus although there be very great need of both for remission of sinnes doth take away the very being of sinne that is past as the Scripture speaketh saying Thou art the Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world which cannot admit any increase because sin being remitted there remaineth nothing and that which is nothing cannot receiue any increase neither can Gods act of remitting receiue increase himselfe doth confesse it Appeale page 195. where hee saith Iustification as it is the worke of God is without Magis or Minus The remission of new sinnes doth not increase remission of sinnes nor can possibly because the sinnes already remitted are wholy taken away the act of God remitting them was extended vnto the totall abolishing of sinne so is it with the act of remitting new sinnes whereby there is no place for increase for that which is so done already that no more can be done thereto that cannot be increased The antecedent is the Doctrine of our Church in the first Sermon of saluation a little after the beginning where it saith wee are washed from sinne in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne The same thing we finde page 377. and 382. of that Booke following Neither can the declaring that sinne is remitted increase the remission of sinne which is no more but as if you should say the tree is knowne by the fruit as your selfe teach Appeale page 197. but to increase is as much as when warm water is made hotter by continuing on the fire with an augmentation and accesse of that heat as your selfe say Gagge p. 142. which two things doe much differ Would Mr Mountagu say his riches were increased if it were declared truely and fully what riches he hath I hope he would not In the like case he must say the declaring that sinne is remitted doth not increase remission If hee will goe on to maintaine that answer then I conclude in his owne words Appeale page 185. Goe and befoole your selfe for opposing common sense and reason When I had come thus farre I supposed here had beene an end of his pretended excuses but when I went on to peruse the rest I found he had spent many pages to proue against or for iust no body Appeale page 183. that Such is the changed estate of men iustified that they are also regenerate that are iustified I say neither against nor for because it was neuer a question on foote by any parties in this world for answer I may returne him his owne words Appeale page 196. In what place doe they speake God saue your honest credit and name mee the place quote the very words of the Authors which are parties to that disputation But this is impossible for him euer to doe If it bee answered he would neuer haue put himselfe thus far into the eye of the world to barke at the moone-shine in the water hee alleadgeth Becanus Appeale page 169. whose words seeme to incline somewhat that wayes I answer something is the matter indeed but he hath not exprest it The reason why I will not determine nor inquire after I will proceed to shew what it is and by that it will appeare it serueth not his turne any thing at all The Church of England teacheth thus touching originall sinne 1 Originall sinne deserueth damnation 2 Originall sinne remaineth in them that are regenerated 3 Originall sinne although there is no condemnation for them that beleeue yet it hath of it selfe the nature of sinne Artic. 9. Againe in the first Homilie of Saluation it saith thus 4 They which sinne in act are washed from their sinnes in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation The Councell of Trent decreeth sess 5. can 5. in these words The grace bestowed in Baptisme doth take away whatsoeuer hath the true and proper nature of sin and sin is not onely rased and not imputed Out of this Doctrine on both sides they inferre against vs as if wee said After remission of sinnes and iustification a man remaineth a sinner truely and that hee is alwaies foule and vncleane As we may find in Bellarmine de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. and de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 9. and cap. 7. Secundo Tertio c. and cap. 11. Vnto which some of the learned in the Church of England do answer as he alledgeth Appeal p. 169. c. We are farre from that opinion for wee teach together with remission of sinnes wee doe receiue diuine grace inabling man to forsake sinne What is to be
sentence iustification considered in it selfe and without any person receiuing the same is said to consist in grace In the second sentence not Iustification in it selfe nor with the partie receiuing it but the partie iustified conceiued otherwise then as he is iustified is said to possesse or inioy grace infused together with his iustification Therefore by the first sentence you did not meane the second 2 If by this sentence Iustification consisteth in grace infused he meant to describe Iustification as it comprehendeth the whole state and condition of a man regenerate reconciled to God then he agreeth fully with the Church of Rome which taketh it so For It describeth Iustification to be A translation from that state in which man was borne a Sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace and adoption of the sonnes of God Councell of Trent sess 6. cap. 4. And more fully it saith Iustification it selfe is not onely remission of sinnes but also sanctification and renouation of the inward man by a voluntary receit of grace and gifts from whence a man is iust of vniust a friend of an enemie and heire according to the hope of euerlasting life cap. 7. But by that sentence he meant so to describe c. as is before set downe no. 7 Wherein also he placeth his confidence Appeale page 172. to giue satisfaction if any will be taken Therefore when hee saith Iustification consisteth in grace infused he agreeth with the Church of Rome Now at the last we are come to a finall conclusion touching the consisting of Iustification in grace infused wherein after many turnings windings and shiftings now this waies then that waies some vnto the matter some besides the matter we are come by his owne direction and the euidence of the thing it selfe vnto this conclusion that hee agreeth with the Church of Rome In the next place we must inquire Whether hee agreeth with the Church of Rome and dissenteth from the Church of England in assigning of the nature of remission of sins Touching which thus he saith Both forgiuenesse of sinnes and grace infused are the act of Gods spirit in man To the same effect the Councell of Trent decreeth in these words Grace bestowed in Baptisme doth take away whatsoeuer hath the true and proper nature of sin sess 5. These sentences of the Councell and Mr. Mountagu doe fully agree He saith the spirit It saith grace He saith the spirit in man It saith grace receiued Hee saith remission of sinne is the act of the spirit It saith grace taketh away the true and proper nature of sinne all which words are of the same value and signification All the Interpreters of the Councell doe extend this decree vnto all sinnes as well personall as originall and that vpon good reason as I suppose Likewise what the Councell saith of grace bestowed in Baptisme They apply also to the habit of grace receiued out of Baptisme because it is the same habit which is receiued by Baptisme without Baptisme which doth make their agreement cleare to the full Moreouer the most common opinion of the Expositors of the Councell doe further say as Bellarmine doth de Iustific lib. 2. cap. 16 Habituall grace hath foure formall effects the first whereof is to purge sinne And thereby they make remission of sinne a physicall worke of grace as when one pinne is driuen out by another or one colour is blotted out by another Some others but they are not many are of opinion that grace doth remit sin by the way of merit but the first opinion is most agreeable to the Councell of Trent which in that decree cannot bee vnderstood of taking away sinne by the way of merit because habituall grace bestowed vpon children cannot bring forth workes and no workes no merits besides if grace did merit remission of sinnes then a man might haue grace for sometime and yet not haue his sinnes remitted For there may fall out sometime after a man hath receiued grace wherein hee hath no opportunity vnto the doing of a meritorious worke Vnto which opinion Mr. Mountagu his words doe greatly incline for he saith Iustification by grace and remission of sinnes is the act of Gods spirit Which is as much as if he had sayd in what sort grace doth make iust in that sort grace doth remit sinne else he could not comprehend them both vnder one act but must haue referred them vnto two acts Now it is agreed vpon by al Bellarmine hath it in the place last alleadged That to make iust is a formall effect of habituall grace And accordingly to remit sinne is a formall effect of habituall grace Againe he saith The soule of man is the subiect of Iustification In these words he speaketh of the soule not simply as being the obiect of an outward worke but as the subiect receiuing remission of sinnes into it and how man should receiue remission of sinne by grace into his soule and that remission not be a formall effect of grace cannot possibly be shewed Lastly if in his opinion sinne doth expell grace formally then he must be of opinion that grace doth expell which is to remit sinne formally But he hath the first Appeale p. 173. where he saith The propertie of those sinnes that are more eminent notorious enormious is to wast the conscience Where wasting the conscience must signifie the putting away of grace for what is there in the conscience that can be wasted by sinne but grace and the act of wasting must be a formall act because sinne is conceiued in such a case to rest and remaine in stead of grace Therefore hee must be conceiued to be of opinion that remission of sinne is a formall effect of grace By this I hope it doth appeare that hee agreeth fully with the Church of Rome But to auoyd all scruple it is requisite that I remoue one obiection which may be made after this manner Hee placeth remission of sinnes in the pardon and not-imputation of sinnes Gagge page 143. and in absolution therefrom Appeale pag 169. Therefore he maketh not remission of sinnes a formall effect of grace I answer hee may say both and yet agree with them for although the Councell of Trent sess 6. can 11. and cap. 7. hath but implyed not expresly decreed this manner of remitting sinnes yet all the Interpreters by one consent doe teach both expresly except onely Gabriel Vasquez in 1m. 2 ae disp 204. per tot yea he must hold the latter though he doth hold the former for pardon c. is required also vnto the perfect doing away of sinne as Thomas teacheth 3. part q. 22. art 3. C. And Suarez proueth at large de grat lib. 7. cap. 13. and 14. And thus much I hope is sufficient to shew his consent with the Church of Rome I come now in the next place to shew his dissent from the Church of England in this point of remission of sinnes What the Church of England hath decreed in
of Bellarmine alleadged no. 13. the antecedent part of the proposition is found de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. where he alledgeth a passage out of Chemnitius containing the same doctrine which I haue cited out of the 9 Article and the Homilie at no. 13. out of which he inferreth that we say that sinne is remitted because it is not imputed and wee acknowledge not that it is taken away And in his disputation de Iusti lib. 2. c. 9. Praeterea and cap. 11. Illud autem c. the same thing is repeated The consequent part of the proposition and the inference thereof from that antecedent is in de Iusti lib. 2 cap. 7. Secundo c. Tertio c. I haue assumed negatiuely the consequent part of the proposition because they deny the antecedent part of the proposition and as Bellarmine saith in that place de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. The Councell of Trent Sess 5. can 5 decreed against it The assumption it selfe is their own doctrine as will be confessed on all sides The proofe of the consequence seemeth to be these two things 1 The act of not-imputing doth not take away sinne Confessed by our doctrine no. 13. that saith originall sinne is in the iustified and in it selfe is sin properly and the spots of actuall sin doe likewise remaine 2 By the remaining of sinne that in it selfe is damnable a man is foule vncleane and a sinner truly Now that I haue set their disputation in true form and order I might say If M. Mountagu will maintain his doctrine of remission of sinnes no 23 c. then he must dispute thus too be a worthy child to his mother and a famous refuter of the Gagger If he will not dispute thus he must reuoke that as false in it selfe and a stranger to the Church of England Vnto this argument many Diuines doe answer as he alleadgeth Appeale p. 169. In these words We are far from this absurd opinion for wee teach with the action of God remitting sinne concurreth another action of diuine grace enabling man to forsake and mortifie euery greater sinne which God hath pardoned But how fit this answer is to giue satisfaction to any part of that argument I leaue vnto others to iudge because 1. Bellarmine doth confesse no lesse then is in that answer de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 6. at the beginning 2. It seemeth not fit to bee applyed to the consequence of the proposition for that speaketh of doing away of sinne already committed but this answer speaketh of preuenting sinne not yet committed neither doth it appertain to the assumption which doth not charge vs with the holding of any opinion whatsoeuer Other Diuines doe answer otherwise I will name one in stead of all namely Doctor Abbot in defence of M. Perkins of inherent Iustice 2. part p. 421. his answer is long but I will contract it into so short a roome as I may vsing his owne words Wee say saith hee a man may bee formally iust in qualitie law In course of law and iudgement the forme of iustice is not to bee subiect to crime or accusation and he is formally iust against whom no action or accusation is lyable by law in this sort a man becommeth iust by pardon and forgiuenesse because pardon being obtained the law proceedeth no further and all imputation of the offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer beene committed and this is the state of our iustice in the sight of God our sinnes are forgiuen vs and thereby no accusation is liable against vs. Before I apply this to the argument It must be obserued that the word pardon in this testimony is of the same value and signification with the word not-imputing vsed in the argument for by pardon hee vnderstandeth such an act as whereby the imputation of the offence in law is taken away and to take away the imputation of the offence is not to impute the offence This answere lyeth against the consequence and the proofe thereof affirming that the act of not-imputing sinne doth take away sin and proueth that affirmation which proofe I may dispose thus Whereby we are made formally iust before God that takes away all sinne This proposition is a manifest truth agreed vpon by all parties But not-imputation of sinne is that whereby wee are made formally iust before God For By it all crime action or accusation and offence in law is taken away as if it had neuer beene committed the law proceedeth no further which is formall iustice in law and our formall iustice before God Therefore the not-imputation of sinne doth take away sinne I might proceed further to shew the insufficiency of the argument but I forbeare so to doe this that I haue said is sufficient to iustifie and explicate the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the nature of remission of sinnes and iustification which is as much as I intended and this place requires If Mr. Mountagu notwithstanding all this will insist and say his words alleadged no 23. c. are forced beyond his intent and that in his iudgement there is no other act in remission of sinne but pardon or not-imputation he must looke vnto it for as Bellarmine affirmeth de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 1. 6 That opinion is proper to Caluine If that bee true as it is most true how can hee thinke it is the Doctrine of the Church of England For as himselfe saith Appeale page 72. The Doctrine of the Church of England is not likely to be vpon the party of a faction that hath so long had a schisme on foote against it to bring in Geneuanisme into Church and State c. If it bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England what doth it in Mr. Mountagu his Booke that voweth to thrust out all priuate opinions as Irchins to their holes where they were bred and Bastards to the Parish where they were borne and to the whipping post according to law and like a valiant and true Champion to defend the Doctrine of his Mother the Church of England Therefore I may conclude let him turne himselfe which wayes he will he shall finde himselfe to agree either with the Church of Rome or with Caluine if with them then is hee a Papist if with him then doth hee take the course to bring in Popes into euery Parish as himselfe inferreth and which thing himselfe curseth with a heauy and bitter curse Appeale page 44. I hope hee will be rather a Papist then a Caluinist cursed to hell with his owne mouth I should now shew that this faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous but hee hath brought nothing to proue it true therefore I haue nothing to answer The Councell of Trent in the decree already reported no 23. saith three things viz. first notimputation doth not take away sinne secondly sinne is abolished and taken away thirdly the habit of grace doth take away sinne Bellarmine bestoweth great paines to proue
the second which was neuer denyed de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 13. for the first he doth onely say it for the third he hath not so much as one place of Scripture to pretend for it onely de Iusti lib. 2. cap. 16. he offereth a proofe from the nature of sinne that is remitted which can proue nothing because it is as doubtfull as the thing in question by which it is manifest the Scripture knoweth it not and consequently it is erroneous If Mr. Mountagu thinketh not thus let him produce the word of God for the proofe of it and he shall haue answer till then it must goe for such CHAP. XI The point of falling from Grace Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church â—â— England I See no reason why I may not confidently maintaine falling from grace Appeale page 37. He that is Iustified may lose the grace of iustification which hee haeth receiued Con. Trenâ— sess 6. can 23. After that we haue receiued the holy Ghost wee may depart from grace giuen therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sinne as long as they liue here Artic 16. In the second part of the Homily of falling from God we are sent vnto a conclusion not onely of totall lapse for a time but also of finall separation and for euer which is also according to the Doctrine expressed in the Articles for he that saith a man may fall away and may recouer implyeth withall that some men may fall away and may not recouer By euery mortall sinne a man doth lose the grace of Iustification which hee hath receued cap. 15.  Which sentence mâ—st now be accounted his owne because he brings it as the Doctrine of our Church he professeth Appeal page 48 what that Church beleeueth I beleeue what it teacheth I teach   Sometime the Elâ—ct Called the Iustified such as Peter was doe fall totally from Gods grace Appeale page 16. By a wicked life men doe fall away from grace Appeale p. 36. By all which places alledged we haue his mind in this point to the full I will set it downe in seuerall propositions for the more ease of memory and vnderstanding and follow his order thus 1 A man may fall away from grace 2 A man may fall away from grace totally and finally 3 The Elect and Iustified doe sometime fall away totally 4 By sinne a man doth fall from grace CHAP. XII The point set downe in the former Chapter is argued THat wee may proceed in this question in the same order that wee haue done in the former three things must be propounded 1 Whether this proposition A man may fall from grace be true or not 2 Whether that proposition consent with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not I haue propounded the first of his propositions to be discussed and not any of the rest because they doe but explicate and set out the meaning of this The second and third sheweth who they be that doe lose grace and how farre they doe lose grace The fourth sets out the next cause that procureth the losse of grace The handling of these three will come in each one in his seuerall place By the terme fall away is signified the losse of grace and is as much as if it were said hee that hath receiued grace may lose that grace and be destitute thereof By grace is meant the habit of holinesse or that inward forme disposition or qualitie out of which the workes of piety in the outward actions of mans life doe flow and whereby hee is ordered and set into the way of eternall happinesse The word may signifieth the possibility in the euent of the separation of man and grace as we vse to say a man may lose his life That he doth consent with the Church of Rome so farre as the Councell hath decreed it is plaine and euident now the Councell must bee conceiued to speake of euery man that is iustified whether predestinate or not predestinate for it speaketh of man iustified without limitation Secondly it must bee vnderstood of the losse of all grace receiued For it speaketh of the losse of the habit If a man loseth the habit he loseth all Thirdly it must bee conceiued that the Councell speakes of a losse finall in some because it speaketh not of the recouery againe of any and that is as much as Mr. Mountagu saith but because wee haue not these things expresly in the Councell therefore we must haue recourse vnto the Interpreters for the vndoubted minde of the Councell Bellarmine de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. saith We haue example in three which lost their Iustice and did recouer it againe and of fiue that did so lose their Iustice as that they became reprobates Where we haue Mr. Mountagu his sentence fully and plainely For he saith the Elect doe lose and recouer others doe lose and not recouer Other Authors of theirs doe speake so as Bellarmine doth but I need not name them because it is common vnto them all to speake thus Mr Mountagu supposeth that the reprobate also doe sometimes receiue the habit of holinesse and so saith Bellarmine too de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14 where hee hath the same thing for his title and concludeth it in the Chapter Habemus igitur c. in these words The Iustice of Iustification is not proper to the elect but sometime common with the reprobate Lastly M. Mountagu saith simply Sinne procures this losse where he must be vnderstood of those sins which he telleth vs Appeale p. 173. doe wast the conscience and not of those which he calleth sinnes of ordinary incursion that is to speake in plaine English as himselfe there sayes of mortall but not of veniall sinnes and so saith the Councell too Vpon which I may conclude M. Mountagu agreeth with the Councell of Trent in this point to a word and vpon the reckoning wee find that this his agreemeÌ„t in these foure former propositions doth yeeld vs his consent with them in two more viz. 1 Sinne is mortall and veniall 2 Grace habituall is common to the elect and reprobate Touching the opinion of Arminius in this point thus he writeth Appeale p. 16. I haue beene assured that Arminius did hold not onely Intercision for a time but also abscision and abiection too for euer That a man called and iustified through the grace of God might fal away againe from grace totally and finally and become a cast away as Iudas was for euer He must bee vnderstood to speake this of the predestinate otherwise he putteth no diffence betweene Arminius and his owne professed opinion whether he consenteth therewith or dissenteth therefrom he saith nothing expresly That he doth dissent from Arminius it is not probable for hee had sufficient reason to haue protested his dissent if hee could haue done it with truth It is very probable hee doth consent because being charged
false that 16. Article doth not say A man may recouer the grace he hath lost But The expresse words of the Article are By the grace of God wee that fall into sinne may amend our liues Which two sentences doe most really differ This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record against the sight of the eye His fourth argument is set downe Appeale page 36. and thus he beginneth 4 In the publike seruice of our Church you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too I answer he promised positiue and declaratory Doctrine and expresse words affirming his falling from grace and now he paies vs with consequences a fault you reproued very often and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it Turne backe againe and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe Was there euer any man so senslesse as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequences Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of reason as to beleeue him Surely no for that were a worke endlesse If the faith of our Church be in this consequence why not in second vpon the first and a third vpon the second c And this is enough to satisfie the whole but lest he should haue an ill conceit of himselfe if I should cut him off thus shortly therefore I will set downe what that is which he telleth vs is as much as falling from grace commeth too and this it is Euery Childe duely Baptised is put into the state of grace and saluation by that lauer of regeneration Which must be acknowledged and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England being taught first in the forme of priuate Baptisme secondly in the Catechisme thirdly in the rubricke before the Catechisme I answer first this is Bellarmines second reason for this point de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly these are not records of the faith of our Church no publike act of our Church hath made them such Besides the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse the one being a forme of administration of Prayers and Sacraments the other short precepts for the instruction of Infants Hee was neere driuen when hee catched at this shadow Moreouer hee affirmeth most falsly where he saith this sentence Euery one duely Baptised is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation is taught in the places quoted The words of the places themselues will shew it neither is there any such thing meant or intended in them It may be he will reiect this answer because I make it I reply in his owne words Appeale p. 277. If you will not admit the answer I can name you one who will say and approne as much whom you dare not deny to be of credit or stile as you doc some others Appeale page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element and medled beyond his latchet I meane Bishop Iewell whose words are these In the Sacrament of Baptisme by the sensible signe of water the inuisible grace of God is giuen vnto vs Artic. 5. diuis 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised and so the members of Christ Artic. 8. diuis 16. folio 291. Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for Mr. Mountagu but let him interpret himselfe and make vp his iudgement full touching the vse of the Sacrament and then wee shall finde him directly against him and for that end he saith thus We confesse that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration hath made vs flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that we are the members and hee is the head This merueilous coniunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith afterward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs and increased in our Baptisme wherein must be considered that the holy mysteries doe not begin but rather continue and confirme this incorporation Artic. 1. diuis 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against Mr. Mountagu I answer thus If in his iudgement the Doctrine of the Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ and grace by Christ then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme and the Catechisme doe not meane to say Euery Child baptised is thereby put into the state of grace and saluation For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England set downe in those places or in any other neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did conceiue it to be But that hee did so conceiue of it his words doe shew and he addeth that our incorporation is begun first and afterwards assured and increased in our Baptisme which doth not begin it which is so plaine full and direct a contradiction vnto Mr. Mountagu as the mind can deuise or words expresse If yet this testimony will not serue let the Church of England in the 25. and 27. Articles tell vs what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments where it assigneth To the Sacraments in generall that they are 1 Tokens of Christian profession 2. Signes of Gods good will 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith 1 It is a signe of regeneration 2 An instrument wherby we are grafted into the Church 3 By it the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne and adoption are sealed 4. Faith is confirmed and grace increased These no more but these are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme assigned by our Church it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme If it be answered the Liturgie and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles I reply so to say is wholly without authority fondly without shew of reason The Articles were made vpon great deliberation and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religion therefore it would not omit principall points and set downe others that are subordinate and not called into question If the professors of the faith of our Church publikely and priuately in writing and by word of mouth haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles and is maintained by Bishop Iewell and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith nor the mother so carelesse of her faith as to suffer it to be corrupted and her intent to be changed Forasmuch as she could not be ignorant what was done nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse If
it be said some haue taught as M. Mountagu doth I answer it hath beene in a corner then He that did so Crept in at the window neither shepheard nor sheepe knew it If Mr. Mountagu will be one of them he may be for me I enuy not his happinesse nor will follow his course To conclude this argument M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome in another point of their erronious faith The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus The grace of Iustification is bestowed by the Sacraments and that vnto all c. sess 7. can 4. 7. 8. The Sacrament of baptisme is the instrument all cause of Iustification without which no man is iustified sess 6. cap. 7. And this faith of the Church of Rome is explicated and defended by Bellarmine as in other places so in these 1 Of the Sacraments in generall lib. 2. cap. 3. 2 Of Baptisme in speciall lib. 1. cap. 11. Quarto proposâ—tio c. and cap. 12. Veri effectus c. Mr. Mountagu saith Euery child baptised is put thereby into the state of grace and saluation Iust as they doe And thus much for this argument and all the rest which hee pretendeth to take from the authenticall records of the doctrine of the Church of England He bringeth others from the testimonies of singular men liuing in our Church which indeed doe not deserue answer but because hee hopeth by them to helpe a lame dog ouer the stile and to vphold a cause ready to fall I will propound and examine them The first whereof is set downe Appeale pag. 28. in this forme They were the learnedst in the Church of England that drew composed agreed ratified iustified and subscribed the Articles and penned the Homilies But all these haue and do assent to falling from grace Therefore the learnedst in the Church of England assent therein I answer this Sylogisme is false the middle terme is predicated in the proposition and subiected in the assumption it ought to be thus framed They that composed c. Did assent c. They that composed c. Were the learnedst c. Therefore some that were the learnedst c. Did assent I answer the assumption is a vaunt of his bragging veine and more then the parties themselues would assume or he can proue he knoweth not who composed them c. they were dead long before he was borne and there is no record of their names The proposition is false neither the Articles nor Homilie doe teach falling from grace as my answers thereunto doe plentifully witnesse His second argument of this kind is in Appeale pag. 31. set downe in these words 1 It was the Tenet of Doctor Ouerall That a Iustified man might fall away from grace and thereby incurre Gods wrath and was in state of damnation vntill he did recouer againe and was renewed after his fall 2 Which opinion was resolued of and auowed for true Catholike ancient and Oxthodoxe by the Royall reuerend honourable and learned Synode at the Conference at Hampton Court 3 The booke of the proceedings is extant which will auerre all that I say for truth against you here See the I answer I thinke he would inferre from hence I am sure hee should inferre Therefore some of the learnedst in the Church of England do maintaine falling from grace The antecedent hath three branches the third is a proofe of the two first The first branch is false I haue read the booke which reporteth Doctor Overalls opinion in pag. 41. and 42 in these words The called and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election might and did sometime fall into grieuous sinnes and thereby into the present state of wrath yet They did neuer fall either totally From all the graces of God to be vtterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof Nor finally From Iustification But were renewed You report him to say they fell into the state of damnation which importeth a falling totally The booke reporteth him denying falling totally or finally The second branch is also false the book hath not a word that reporteth any confirmation of the opinion of Doctor Ouerall His happe was hard that amongst so many words he could not light vpon one true one and his face very audatious that durst affirme a falshood for truth against the light of the noone-day He talketh of conscience and honesty and Cheuerell and I know not what Hee must tell vs vnder which of those heads this allegation shall be ranged for he hath best skill in such language the allegation it selfe standeth vnder the censure of the reader and the allegator at the barre of the Almighty therefore I leaue this and passe to the next Hitherto I haue spoken to the matter vrged in the two arguments now must I say a word or two touching the conclusion of them both which saith Some of the learnedst c. Vnto which I haue these two things to say first he getteth nothing though it were granted him He ought to proue The Church of England teacheth his falling from grace Which will not follow vpon his conclusion because those learnedst he speaketh of may be a faction prevailing in the Church of England Secondly his intent is to say all the learned in the Church of England doe maintain falling from grace for he saith Ap. p. 28. Many in the Church of England reputed learned are of opinion Grace cannot bee lost which is as much as if hee said they haue the name of learning but haue none indeed all the learned say as I say Which sentence is a most vaine idle and insulting brag If all were vnlearned that deny falling from grace then I hope Mr Mountagu is learned that affirmes the losse of grace and that dareth sentence them all for want of learning that deny falling from grace but how learned hee is let this whole disputation shew wherein you shall finde great plenty of notorious faults against learning as false Sylogismes loose consequences notorious false premisses impertinent conclusions false allegations propositions contrary in their parts headlesse diuisions manifest contradictions a nosegay of some of them I doe here present you Thus he writeth The Church of England leaueth the question touching falling from grace at liberty vnto vs Gagge page 158. The question touching falling from grace is vndecided in the Church of England Gagge p. 171. The consented resolued and subscribed Articles of the Church of England nor yet the Booke of common Prayer and other diuine offices doe not put any tye vpon me to resolue in this question touching falling from grace Appeale page 26. Contrary whereunto he writeth as followeth That man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England Appeale page 31. That a man may fall from grace is the Doctrine of the Church of England deliuered publikely positiuely and declaratorily in authenticall records Appeale page 36. The Church of England it selfe hath directly and in expresse words taught that a
he vnderstands it not for then he could not distinguish sinne into mortall and veniall for all sinne in this sense is mortall If by veniall he vnderstood no more but sin not deseruing damnation by Gods not-imputing it I will grant that sinne is veniall but hee must not vnderstand it thus for so all the sinnes of the iustified are veniall or to speake in the words of the Church of England first Homilie of saluation a little after the beginning Their sinnes are washed in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sinne that shall bee imputed to their damnation It remaineth therefore that hee taketh mortall and veniall in the same sense that the Church of Rome doth Which being true that distinction is denyed and so he begs the question and proues it not It is also denyed that a man habitually sanctified can commit any such sinne as the Church of Rome calleth mortall and yet he proues this as he did the former euen by his owne word If you will not beleeue him you must goe look proofe other where but you must not looke it in Bellarmine for if he had brought any Mr. Mountagu would haue giuen it you in English His next branch is this Where mortall sinne is committed God is disobeyed I answer in this sentence he attributeth disobedience vnto mortall sinne adequately denying veniall sinne to be any disobedience vnto Gods law for if he did not so he must say that the habit of grace is lost by the committing of such sinnes as hee calls veniall for he saith as we shall see anon where God is disobeyed grace cannot consist but must needs be lost But he will not say grace is lost by veniall sinne therefore he conceiueth onely mortall sinne disobeyeth Gods law Iust as Bellarmine doth who teacheth Veniall sinne is sinne by analogy or certaine proportion and imperfectly after a certaine sort but not perfectly and simply neither is it perfectly voluntary nor perfectly against the Law but besides the Law De amiss gra lib. 1. cap. 11. Quintum c. If you aske me how Mr Mountagu proues this I answer with no worse proofe then he hath done the former branches and that is his owne very word which you need not sticke at for he is one of the learnedst in the Church of England His third branch is in these words Where God is disobeyed he will not abide I answer in what sense soeuer the word disobeyed be taken this sentence is false and must goe for such till he hath proued it which yet he hath not done nor attempted to doe let him shew vs in the diuine Reuelation one of these two things 1 God hath decreed to take away his grace vpon the committing of this or that sinne 2 This actuall sinne is of that nature that of it selfe it doth expell grace If he proue one of these the question is at an end the Diuine Oracle must haue credit If you bring not that you hunt a flea and pursue a shadow It is in vaine for you to tell vs a Iust man may sinne till you proue that grace must giue place to sinne by the ordinance and decree of God or the nature of the things themselues There be some other things in this proofe to be examined but I passe them ouer because they depend vpon these branches which I haue answered vnto and doe stand or fall with them To conclude this argument I say It is worthy to be obserued that the maintainers of falling from grace are raised vnto a great pitch of confidence in the truth of that position but at the vpshot their proofes are for the thing denyed by none and they take for granted the things denyed by all which kind of disputing in it selfe is most vnsound for it is no more but as if they should say it is so because we say it is so and it is most dangerous to the Reader that is not very wary for it is most deceitfull bearing a shew of truth through the allegation of many places of Scripture which indeed doe nothing concerne the thing in question It may be some will vrge these places of Scripture on this sort If he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometimes doth commit such sinnes as for which in in the euent he is cast into hell then a man may lose and some doe lose the habit of sanctity But he that is habitually sanctified alwayes may and sometime doth commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he is cast into hell Therefore c. I answer In this reason I grant the first part or consequence of the proposition because no man hath the habit of sanctity in the moment when hee goes to hell for that leades to another end and is alwayes to be crowned with glory But the assumption or second part which hath two branches is wholly false no one place of Scripture doth affirme or inferre either of these two sentences The habitually sanctified may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell Some habitually sanctified haue committed such sins as for which he is now in hell If any require me to shew that the places alledged doe not proue thus much I answer That is not my office for 1. the question is not at this present purposely disputed 2 It is their place to dispute and mine to answer let them apply the Scriptures to the purpose in an orderly forme and I will make my answer good It is enough for mee to giue them an Issue They must proue the Issue or leaue the cause behind them I will put some of their allegations into forme and answer to them which I doe thus He that may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such actuall sinne as for which hee is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell he may commit such sinnes as for which in the euent he shall be cast into hell But the man habitually sanctified may leaue his actuall righteousnesse and commit such sinne as for which he is threatned by God in the euent to be cast into hell So saith Ezech. cap. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity hee shall dye therein Therefore the man habitually sanctified may commit such sinne as for which in the euent he shall goe to hell I answer although the proposition seemes not to be euidently true because God may so threaten sin to shew vnto man what the desert of sinne is and not what in the euent shall become of such a sinner yet I will not at this present insist thereupon but come to the assumption which is not true neither doth the place alledged make it appeare to be so for these three words viz. Righteous Righteousnesse Iniquity may import the act and none of them can signifie the habit as the text it selfe doth euidently shew which doth interpret the word Righteous by the word Righteousnesse and Righteousnesse it calleth an Act
of his will this is sure God did so by them and wee beleeue it because he hath said it that he doth so by other men we beleeue not because God hath not said it Wee know some men are in the possession of the habit of grace if you will haue vs beleeue this possession to be casuall shew vs where God hath said hee will take it away else wee dare not beleeue you for it is plaine none can take it away but God and he will not take it away vnlesse hee hath reuealed so much vnto vs which he hath not done and so much for all his arguments taken from Scripture He vrgeth Fathers with no lesse confidence of plenty and plainnesse for him pretending also the authority of our Church commanding all men to receiue their testimony Appeale page 36. and 37. He bringeth some by name Gagge page 165. c. But this is a very bubble and comes from that foysting fountaine that the rest of his brags haue done Bellarmine hath no such confidence in the Fathers hee nameth but two and out of each of them one sentence and so sitteth him downe which Bellarmine would neuer haue done if he could haue found more If Mr. Mountagu will say Bellarmine is a poore Ignaro and hath no old learning himselfe hath read more Fathers then Bellarmine euer heard of which is his owne language in another case all the world would laugh at him but not beleeue him The conclusion is Bellarmine neither brags nor brings therefore Mr. Mountagu doth both in vaine I will finish my answer to his Fathers by his owne direction Gagge page 165. There needs no proofe by Fathers where holy Scripture is silent Fathers may be pretended by false play but none indeed and in truth according to their words and meaning can be produced Let him try when he will in a Logicall forme and he shall finde it Thus haue I concluded my answers to all his arguments brought to proue his falling from grace taken from the Scriptures and Fathers His last argument for the same purpose I finde Appeale page 17. which he beginneth thus If you deny falling from grace you are a Papist I answer this sentence beginneth an argument which is continued by diuers other parts which follow It is called a delemma in plaine English a Net a Snare a Toyle to catch the old one the battell is before and behinde turne you which waies you will it will catch you But soft and faire old Birds will not be caught with chaffe if the stuffe of your Net be vnsound your game will escape This sentence doth neither affirme nor deny put it into a lawfull forme and it speaketh thus He that denyeth falling from grace is a Papist This sentence is false for falling from grace is an Article of the Popish faith as himselfe confesseth Gagge page 158. and I haue proued by the Councell of Trent cap. 11. The denyall of the Popish faith cannot argue a man to be a Papist in the iudgement of any man liuing Hee is a strange Papist that treads the faith of Papists vnder his feete but more strange that a man should be a Papist for denying the Popish faith Well but he will proue it by the words which follow viz. For I demand did Peter fall or did he not fall when he denyed Christ I answer euery interrogation hath the force of an affirmation now this is referred as a proofe vnto the precedent sentence by the word for which doth immediately follow the same thus then hee doth dispute Peter did either fall or not fall Therefore hee that denieth falling from grace is a Papist I know you laugh at this naughtie consequence but you must not doe so Homer may take a â—â—p well let that passe Peter did fall or not fall what of that wee staâ—d now betweene two you must tell vs which wee shall chuse for that end these words follow If abnegation and abiuration and execration will inforce a fall he did I answer this leaueth the matter no lesse doubtfull then it was this giueth vs leaue to say But it did not inforce a fall Therefore Peter did not fall Or thus But it did inforce a fall Therefore he did fall When you haue said all you haue said nothing It may be the next will dispatch the matter You say If he fall he needes must fall totally or finally for shew me a third I answer this is faire but farre off whither this tendeth none but your selfe knowes if your selfe doe know you shall be crowned for a choyce one You diuide a totall fall from a finall and that is absurd Euery finall is a totall and some totall is also finall your selfe being Iudge There may be a fall neither totall nor finall as when Gods concurse or actuall grace is with-held but the habit remaineth And this is possible seeing there is actuall grace and habituall as Suares does proue plenteously de grat proâ—egom 3. cap. 6. and 3 parte lib. 1. no 4. c. yea actuall and habituall grace also doe differ in their vse This seruing to make mans will fit to eliciate supernaturall actions after a connaturall and perfect manner by an inrrinsicall and connaturall faculty as Suarez teacheth opusc 1. lib. 3. cap. 4. no. 1. That tending to dispose vnto this as the Councell of Trent sess 6. cap. 5. and 6. decreeth and Suarez consenteth in the place alleadged and to moue the habit vnto working being obtained as Aluarez proueth de Auxilijs disp 88. and the thing it selfe by perpetuall experience doth shew see Alua. disp 24. no 37. and Bellar. de grat lib. 1. cap. 4. Quatuor dona haue patience it may be it will come anone in the meane time he proceeds thus Now then in such denyall St. Peter did he fall or did he not fall I answer the word Then importeth an inference so that this sentence is inferred vpon another but what that other is wee shall not finde in any part of this argument for they are all either disiunctiue or connext propositions Before we had heads without a tayle now we haue a tayle without a head this demand came once before it seemeth it will abide a second seething well let that be what will become of it wee shall see anone and that is well no doubt for the second seething hath made it wholsome food thus you goe on You must answer he did not fall I answer and so must you too or be a rebell against your Mother the Church of England which in the first Sermon of Repentance a little before the end where after it had reckoned vp Peters denyall of his Master and dissimulation at Antioch it concludeth After this grieuous offence hee was not vtterly excluded and shut out from the grace of God With whom I also say Peter did not lose the habit of grace by the denyall of Christ but what of all this he will now tell you in these words So that you ioyne with the
is matters of manners all of them are not matters of faith and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith but some of them bee matters of manners He grants them to be godly therfore true for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse They are subscribed in some things therefore in this that I haue alleadged because it is not a rhetoricall enforcement nor a Tropicall kinde of speech but the conclusion enforced which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie without interpretation This is enough to proue my proposition and thus I dispute from it Euery exhortation propounded inforced esteemed godly commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church is the Doctrine of our Church But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15 is an exhortation propounded inforced c. by our Church Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off The sight of truth may bee hindered but the being of truth cannot be defeated hee that attempteth to conceale it in the euent makes it more apparent Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images but I finde no proofe for that It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue that Images in Churches are vnlawfull and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them but that should be vnorderly for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine reuelation ought to shew vs record for it and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrowed proofes from Bellarmine de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent To answer Bellarmine is but labour lost for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes and it would be too tedious for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion and present businesse Let Mr Mountagu vrge what he liketh best and hee shall haue answer till then I rest satisfied with the Homilie that disputeth thus against Images in Churches 1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Images set vp in Churches then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches But the first is true perpetuall experience doth shew it and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption and the worshipping of Images doth procure it pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also 2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto supernaturall actions and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end is vnlawfull But Images in Churches are so vsed and are not warranted c. pag. 88. Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements and no Doctrine of the Church of England I will saue him that labour I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them not for the authoritie that doth commend them Let him shew wherein they be vntrue or confesse they are true and it sufficeth But he is not able to shew this and therefore wee may safely conclude this man was strangely transported when he wrote on this manner in these words If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse our Church would not haue departed from them about that point as I suppose for so our doctrine is Appeale p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed but they are singular illuminates let them gang alone I answer what the doctine of our Church is in this point of Images I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter If you can bring any record for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse namely of suggesting vnto mouing or affecting the mind euen in pious and religious affections which you father vpon it p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth that the world may see it But because you cannot I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology p. 350 without offence which are as followeth Leaue leaue this hypocrisie dissemble no more it is not manly your credit faileth ouermuch your word is no sufficient warrant If you will fall into your wonted fury it is the Bishop that must beare it They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here I could adde a farther refutation and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England by the testimony of Bishop Iewell but I defer it vnto the next passage where the reader shall find it He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images but hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof and negation of the contrary For thus hee writeth There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images Appeale pag. 252. I answer There is Popery in it for it is the faith of the Church of Rome as I haue shewed in the chapter going before and it is contrary to the word of God as I will shew anon both which are sufficient to make it Popery euen in your owne iudgement for thus you write Popery is contrary to the word of God Appeal p. 310. But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contrarie the word of God for thus he writeth 1 The historicall vse of Images is true doctrine in it selfe Appeale p. 251. 2 That Images may be made for ornament memory history no law of God forbiddeth Appeale p. 265. I answer Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent to shew vs what is true or not true what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case that I shall need to produce none but him Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article p. 378. c. 1 The first end of Images is the attaining of knowledge although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge Saint Paul saith faith commeth by hearing not by gazing This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people for where greatest store of such Schoolemasters be there the people are most ignorant superstious and subiect to Idolatry 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind but euery thing that may moue the mind is not meet for the Church of God Gods house is a house of prayer not of gazing Whoeuer adoreth or maketh his prayer beholding an Image is so moued in his mind that hee thinketh the Image heareth him and hopeth it will performe his prayer Alleadged out of S. Augustin p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first and therefore is already answered Thus farre the reuerend Bishop If old learning can satisfie this illumination the Bishop must gang alone If it cannot old learning shall haue
vnprofitable seruants as the place now alleadged Mat. 25. 26. 30. verses sheweth which saith that the vnprofitable seruant gained nothing by his talent and that by his owne choyce and resolution The other that goe not to hell hath both they are vnprofitable for a time they are profitable finally or for euer They are called vnprofitable in some respect viz. In respect of their faylings and as they are in themselues but they are called good and faithfull totally finally and vniuersally by meanes of their grace of the not-imputing of their faylings and of Gods fauour wherein they are made good by the receiuing of all supernaturall good things By this I hope it doth appeare the argument which our Church vseth against voluntary workes is strong and sufficient against the pretences of Bellarmine I come now to defend this Doctrine of the Church of England by answering such arguments as I finde brought by Mr. Mountagu against it Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 8. at the end saith Euangelicall Councels be chiefly of continency obedience and pouerty Mr. Mountagu in his Gagge page 103. doth instance them in virginity and wilfull pouerty Bellarmine alleadgeth Mat. 29. and 21. 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. to proue that these be Euangelicall Councels de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 9. arg 5. and 7. Mr. Mountagu reporteth the same places Gagge page 105. and granteth that they speake of Euangelicall Councels by which he disputeth in this sort Wilfull pouerty Mar. 19. and 21. single life 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. may bee done Wilfull pouerty Mat. 19. and 21. single life 1 Cor. 7. 25. and 28. be voluntary workes Therefore some voluntary workes may be done I answer the first part of this argument is false the places alleâ—dged doe not shew or commend wilfull pouerty and virginity vnto all men Those places belong onely to particular persons and times In Matth. our Sauiour speaketh vnto the yong man that would know what hee should doe to come to heauen The Apostle in his Epistle to the Corinths directeth his answer to such as doubted what to doe in case of mariage and we doe not finde in the word of God that these answers are extended any further and many things in the places themselues doe restrain them onely to those persons and times The second part of the Argument is also false A voluntary worke first is good secondly more then the Law requires thirdly gratefull or acceptable to God fourthly a meanes leading to eternall life fiftly left vnto a mans choyce not strictly commanded to bee done or not done as wee learne by Bellarmine in the place alleadged and Mr. Mountagu Gagge page 104. 105. and 106. But this selling Mat. 19. and abstaining 1 Cor. 7. haue not these properties Therefore they are not voluntary workes That they are not meanes leading vnto heauen will easilie bee granted by euery man that hath any experience in the word of God or the worke of grace for there is no promise of heauen made to a man vpon condition of hispouerty or virginity rather then to him that is rich and maried If any man thinkes otherwise let him shew that promise in some other place of Scripture I say in some other place of Scripture because it is vsuall with the holy Ghost to repeat illustrate vrge the means of saluation and the connexion of heauen thereunto in more places then one If that cannot be found as without doubt it cannot then it must be shewed that these places alleadged doe containe it expresly and without doubtfulnesse for the holy Ghost would not content himselfe to shew vs a meanes of saluation by obscure and doubtfull termes Bellarmine affirmeth that wilfull pouerty and virginity in the places alleadged be meanes of euerlasting life and Mr Mountagu ioynes with him in it Gagg p. 105. and 106. Bellarmine proues the first is to be a meanes of life because our Sauiour saith to the yong man thou shalt haue treasure in heauen And M. Mountagu confirmes it with the same words Gagg p. 105. I answer vnto them both our Sauiour made not this promise vnto his selling but to his comming vnto and following of Christ I proue it because this promise is annexed immediately vnto his comming and his comming importeth a deniall of himselfe and taking vp his crosse which is an obedience due vnto God necessarily as Bellarmine confesseth in that 9. chapter alleadged Septimum c. respondeo haec c. and also because that denyal c. is assigned as a means of saluation vrged as a necessary duty in many places of Scripture But the Scripture hath not any such word of wilfull pouerty Againe when the Disciples in the chapter alleadged verse 27. pleaded that they had forsaken all and followed him demanded what they should haue he promised them euerlasting life and assigneth only their following of him as the meanes thereof but hath not a word of their leauing of all ver 28. Bellarmine bringeth proofe in that 9. chapter alleadged I am vero c. that virginity is a meanes of salvation and that both the places of Scripture alleadged in the argument doe speake vnto all the faithfull At contra c. But I passe them ouer with silence because M. Mountagu hath not a word of them and the proofes themselues are so slight childish that to set them in forme and to answer them would be losse of my labor a burthen to the reader Thus I conclude my answer to the argument because M. Mountagu hath brought nothing in confirmation thereof more then I haue satisfied Bellarmine hath other arguments to proue voluntary workes but they are not worthy answer because M. Mountagu doth omit them and these two places of Scripture are the chiefe and principall And with this I might end this whole point but that he is importunate Appeale p. 22 1. with one argument whereby he is sure to make you confesse that a man may doe voluntary workes these are his words If you will needs deny Euangelicall councels you will be foundworse by farre then Papists I answer Shew vs wherein we should be worse then Papists then you say some thing that may perhaps bring vs to your bow If that wil serue turn he wil not stick with you Herein he saith you are worse in that You are conuicted in your consciences willingly to breake those words of our Sauiour Goe sell all that thou hast and giue it to the poore which you are perswaded is a precept I answer I let passe by quarrells and come to the matter By precept you meane a precept to vs else you cannot charge vs to breake it that doe not so sell That being obserued you charge vs falsely Shew vs the man that hath said that those words of our Sauiour are a commandement vnto vs. Bellarmine de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 9. will shew you two men that denies it viz. Caluin and Martyr hee bringeth them both saying these
words were spoken onely to the young man And he that readeth his Confirmation of his 5 argument shall find it so If you will proue the doing of voluntary workes by our owne confâ—ssion you must bring vs things true and not falshood against the light of the Sunne Yet so ioyous confident and iocund is hee in this argument as if all were his owne as if hee had spoken nothing but what was as true as Gospell therefore he proceedeth on this wise If you doe not sell all that you haue and giue it to the poore you must giue me leaue to thinke you dissemble If you demand of him wherein that dissimulation should lye he is not to seeke for answer thus he doth shew it you You would perswade men of a case of necessity that your selues may feed fat vpon their folly I answer when I read this passage I could not but stand amazed and my heart within mee became cold to see the libertie that an angry minde and an euill tongue will take but staying my sâ—lfe a while at last I remembred him that said I will lay my hand vpon my mouth and him that was a lambe dumbe before the shearer that opened not his mouth That indured such speaking against of sinners This gaue me satisfaction for the iniurie of this euill sentence touching the Author whereof I say no more but this Lord forgiue him for hee knoweth not what he doth and so I might put an end to this whole point But stay he must talke a few cold words with you before you part and these be they He that said a man may doe more than he is commanded was no Papist they that say it is Popery are men of poore capacitie not apprehending what is popery what is not they misdeeme mistake misname popery Appeale p. 217. 218. I answer this suteth well with the last passage both of thâ—m together doe witnesse without exception that Mr Mountagu is a carefull obseruer of Councels for these sentences be vnmeasurable railings and I am sure they were neuer coÌ„manded and I presume neuer coâ—ncelled by God He must shew vs then who gaue him a law for them or whose Councells they are By Popery he must meane the erroneous faith of Rome That being so his bitternesse is ioyned with falshood a sweet Garden that yeeldeth such flowers That it is he faith of Rome is already agreed on That it is erroneous hath beene hitherto inquired of in this question It was your duty to haue shewed vs your voluntary works in the Scripture but you haue not therefore we must resolue you cannot If they be not there you must confesse they be erroneous Therefore the vnderstanding and capacitie of them that deny them was rich enough to finde out your Popery and giue the right name to it I could giue him that vrgeth Popish voluntary works such titles as he doth iustly deserue and which might equall those which he vniustly giues to such as refuse them but I leaue them as fittest for his eloquence and such Reuilers to the dispose of him that hath pronounced a woe vnto such as are strong to doe euill CHAP. XIX Of Predestination Master Mountagu The Church of England I conceiue of Gods act or decree of Predestination after this sort Appeale p. 61. to 65. 1 God decreed to create man 2 He created man good 3 Man fell from that good 4 By that fall hee was plunged into Perdition 5 God saw him and had compassion of him 6 He stretched out deliuerance to theÌ„ in a Mediatour 7 Drew them out which tooke hold of Mercy this I must professe Predestination to life is the euerlasting purpose of God whereby before the foundations of the world were laid hee hath constantly decreed by his Councell secret to vs to deliuer from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankinde and to bring them by Christ to euerlasting saluation as vessells made to honour CHAP. XX. The point of Predestination is debated THis Chapter examineth two questions onely 1 Whether his doctrine of Predestination bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in it with the Church of England c. We omit to enquire whether he consenteth with the Church of Rome or not because the Counsell of Trent hath decreed nothing that I can finde touching the nature of Predestination and the most common opinion of their Schooles dissenteth not from the Church of England Some doe dissent as Occham and others with him in former times And in latter times Gabriel Vasquez and some others with him but the difference is rather in Position and manner of speaking then really and in the thing The disputation in this Chapter is restrained vnto the second onely for of this point he saith Appeale page 61. Take it as I conceiue it and so shall professe it vntill I am informed and ascertained that the Church of England teacheth all otherwise then I conceiue of it This sheweth you lose but labour when you attempt to draw him from his opinion by any arguments taken from Scripture or mans writings bring him the Church of England and it sufficeth if you bring not that he is still where he was The doctrine of the Church of England is not concealed from him nor is the sense obscure hee needeth not dig deâ—pe to finde it there is none worse then hee that will not vnderstand Before I can shew what the Church of England teacheth and how hee dissenteth there-from I must take a view and haue a clâ—ere vnderstanding of the things deliuered by him In which there is seuen distinct branches as the reader may see in the former Chapter The seuenth branch hath these words He drew them out which tooke hold of mercy This branch doth appertaine to Predâ—stination for it concerneth mans ordering vnto his last end and perfection The other sixe belong not thereto for they speake of mans being and the causes thereof and things pertaining thereto They haue not a word of ordering man to any end If this seuenth branch bee framed according to Art it will stand thus Predestination to life is an act or decree of Gods will whereby he purposed to draw them out of the state of perdition which tooke hold of mercy In this frame wee haue the thing defined and that whereby it is defined I restraine the question vnto Predestination to life because our Church doth so Artic. 17. and the Scriptures are more frequent in that and no meruaile why because the Scriptures were written for the direction and consolation of them that shall goe to heauen I haue framed it altogether by his owne direction the question of Predestination is put so by himselfe as I will now shew Appeale page 38. hee calleth it an act or decree of God which must needes be an act of his will and so hee termeth it Appeale page 61. This act is immanent not transient for he saith in the same place hee conceiues it setting by all
execution of purpose and againe he saith in the same place he that is actually Saued is so saued according to the purpose of his decree So saued are So ordained by God Gagge page 177. He saith further Gods will is the cause of things either positiuely by disposing them or by permission c Gagge page 177. Hee doth take this act of Gods will to bee a positiue not a permissiue disposing for he saith whatsoeuer was done in time was So disposed of and ordered before all time Gagge page 178. The word Them imports that man is the subiect of Predestination a certaine number of men not generally all and so he speaketh Appeale page 51. The words out of c. imply that the predestinate to life in our apprehension or as they say in signo rationis were in the state of perdition before they were predestinate and so the steps which in his opinion are obserued by God toward the Predestinate and related in the former Chapter doe expresly shew which also he hath Appeale page 52. fully and plainely These words which tooke hold of mercy doe signifie that in Gods foreknowledge the Predestinate doe finally beleeue and repent c. before they are predestinated or before the will of Predestination is termined vnto them and that this faith repentance c. is the obiectiue reason mouing and regulating the diuine will of Predestination vnto the party predestinated so as if you aske the reason why God did predestinate some it is answered because he would If you demand further why he did predestinate this singular man it is answered because hee tooke hold of Gods mercy in the meanes of saluation offered by beleeuing and repenting and this I take from himself where he saith He that is actually saued is So saued according to the purpose of Gods decree consequent not antecedent Gagge p. 177. And again he saith men are not saued without relation to their repentance Appeale page 74. which thing is most fully declared Appeale page 58. where he blameth this sentence Gods decree to glorifie Peter was without any consideration had of or regard vnto his faith obedience repentance which sentence for substance he setteth down and reiecteth Gagge page 179. And Appeale page 74. he saith without finall perseuering they are none of Gods elect Where he saith he drew them out c. hee placeth the whole terme or end of predestination in giuing eternall life This thing he implyeth also Appeale page 78. where he saith It is your owne God appointed to giue grace and glory as if he should say this sentence is proper to you I disclaime it If man hath grace before he be predestinate then grace is not the terme or end of Predestination he affirmes the first so must he doe the last Thus we haue his sentence of Predestination and the sense thereof now wee must compare the Doctrine of the Church of England with it that thereby wee may see whether our Church hath opposed the contrary thereto or not which hee affirmeth it doth Gagge page 179. I will set downe againe the Doctrine of the Church of England in an orderly forme for the better vnderstanding thereof It is this 1 Predestination is Gods decree Eternall Constant By his Councell secret to vs. 2 To Bring to saluation by Christ Deliuer from damnation 3 Some elected out of mankind in Christ 4 Before the foundations of the world were laid 5 As vessels made to honour And thus standeth the Doctrine of the 17. Article each part being placed according to art the sense whereof I will now also declare PREDESTINATION is the thing defined whose nature our Church doth declare by that which followeth IS hath the place of a band to tye the following part of the sentence vnto that which went before GODS DECREE These words signifie that thing which Predestination hath in common with oher actions of Gods will called the generall nature it doth expresse also the principall efficient namely GOD and an act of his will ETERNALL This doth set out what kinde of act Predestination is to wit such an act as is essentiall vnto God yea it is of his essence for nothing is eternall but the being of God This act of his will doth remaine in God is vsually called an immanent act for it passeth not out of God working a reall change in the creature which is the property of a transient act We conceiue that this act of Predestination is an eliciated act of Gods will and an eliciated act is that which floweth from a power that is the beginning thereof as beleeuing is an act which proceedeth from the faculty which the soule hath to beleeue But Predestination is an eliciated act in our apprehension onely by reason we are not able to apprehend the being of God as it is Whereas the essence of God is a pure act altogether without mixture of the first and second act considered apart and separated in the thing Lastly the relation that this act hath vnto the creature is rationall not reall God is a being of himselfe without respect vnto any created effect CONSTANT This importeth the certaine euent and infallible performance of the thing decreed by Predestination so as he to whom God hath appointed grace and glory shall not faile of either of them but inioy them both without missing And that this is the true intent of our Church it is very plaine because it doth not call the decree it selfe or God in decreeing Constant For that it hath already declared in the word Eternall which signifies a duration without beginning or ending which doth so fully and plainely expresse the constancy of God in decreeing that the word Constant cannot adde any thing thereunto BY HIS COVNSELL By these words our Church sheweth 1. that Gods vnderstanding is ioyned with his will in this act of Predestination for counsell is an act proper to the vnderstanding 2. This act of the vnderstanding to speake according to humane capacitie is to iudge the act of Predestination to be good and to perswade thereunto by the allegation of reason for so we conceiue the vnderstanding to direct the will and this is the nature or condition of Councell he that counselleth doth thus SECRET TO VS By secret is meant vnreuealed the iudgement then of our Church set down in this sentence may be expressed in these words The reason that moued God to predestinate this or that person is vnknowne to vs. TO BRING TO SALVATION These words doe set forth the speciall and proper nature and formall being of Predestination by which it is distinguished from all other actions of God and they import the terme or end of Predestination or the thing appointed to bee giuen by this decree of God which consisteth in happinesse or glory after this life signified by the word saluation and grace in this life by the words bring vnto by Christ For God doth not bring man to saluation but by means and that means can
is no other but them So as what you said there and what you say here ouerthroweth each other If it be them it is not these If it be these it is not them If our 17 Article in your sight hath no more but these then you see our Church doth define Predestination onely by the generall nature efficient cause and subiect matter for your fiâ—e propositions no 15. containe them onely but you dare not say you did see our Church so defining Predestination for then you professe to see a fault in our doctrine not to bee excused seeing that the nature of euery thing is set out by the speciall and formall being and end thereof not by the efficient materiall cause without them But you may not so professe for you say Our Church hath gone on in this point of Predestination warily and in great wisedome and prudence Appeale pag. 59. Besides it is most iniurious and an imputation most false Our Church hath defined Predestination in that 17 article by all the causes whereby it existeth as I haue shewed no 5. 6. which course is most agreeable to art if wee may beleeue Thomas 2 dist 27. q. 1. ar 2. ad 9. And it also hath explicated each cause to make the difinition familiar and easie vnto vnderstanding therefore we must conclude you did see more in the 17 Article then you will acknowledge If you could not see more in the 17 Article then you professe to see then you can scumme vpon the surface but not diue into the depth then haue you no cause to despise the capacitie of other men as poore nor to vaunt of your owne as able to worke wonders seeing there is more in the Article then you can see as hath beene shewed you Thus farre of your reasons to excuse your selfe of disagreeing and dissenting from the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Predestination and for my answers thereunto by which I hope all doubts are so remoued that we may conclude The Church of England teacheth all otherwise in the point of Predestination then you doe Now wee should examine whether hee or our Church doe teach vs the truth in the point that wee may know which of them to follow but Master Mountagu seemeth to decline all search after that For he thus writeth You cannot relish any thing but Gods secrets you are neuer at quiet with the secrets of Gods Kingdome you can neuer let his Predestination alone that comfortable doctrine of election and reprobation is your continuall Theame It is good to be wise vnto sobriety Appeale p. 59. The sum of which words must needs be these Predestination is neither comfortable nor reuealed Therefore not to be disputed nor our common talke For that is wisdome vnto sobriety I answer The Church of England saith article the 17. Predestination is full of sweet pleasant and vnspeakable comfort And lest it should be doubted whether this be true or no our Church addeth a reason to confirme it in these words Because it doth establish their faith of saluation and feruently kindle their loue toward God Whether of them shall we beleeue Our Church or M. Mountagu Sâ—rely our Church is worthy of more credit For she passed her sentence with deliberation and vnpartially He with ill affection It confirmes the position with an experimented truth He with his bare word Such a dutifull child is worthy his mothers blessing that giues her the lie vpon his owne authoritie Predestination is reuealed to M. Mountagu else he would not speake of it so wise is he vnto sobrietie but it is not reuealed vnto vs for wee neuer came so neere vnto the spring head as hee hath done and indeed wee need not pretend reuelation to oppose vnto him we onely say shew vs diuine reuelation for your Predestination and wee beleeue it till then we reiect it as your own fantasie It is your boldnesse to meddle with Gods secrets or to deuise a predestination opposite to his reuelation He proceedeth with these words I professe I doe loue to meddle in nothing lesse then in this their desperate doctrine of Predestination Appeale p. 60. I answer he must conclude from hence that Predestination must not be disputed Or else it is meere Gaggling If he doe thus dispute then haue wee a worthy disputation for wee haue nothing to guide vs but his owne president We must grant the consequent because the authoritie of the antecedent doth inforce it and good reason too for who would not loue and hate what hee loueth and hateth He saith our predestination is desperate I commend him for it By the last words he spake he gaue his mother the lye expresly She said is was comfortable He denyes it with a scoffe Now he saith it is desperate wherein he checks her also for our Predestination is deliuered in her words and conceiued according to her sense and true meaning as may appeare no 5. and 6. Hee scoffes at them that say the doctrine of Predestination is comfortable belike then to him it is not so But whether of these bee in better case whose iudgement may we follow our Churches or his To appeale to himselfe is a thing not equall Popular positions doe often erre priuate spirits are of weake assurance Appeale p. 8. Well then whither shall wee goe to be resolued in this point Vnto the publike Doctrine of the Church of England contained in the Booke of Articles c. he doth appeale for the ending of all doubts with hang in the Church of England page 9. Agreed no better match no fitter Iudge Let the 17. Article speake It saith vnto such as feele the workes of their flesh mortified and their mindes drawne to heauenly things the Doctrine of Predestination is Comfortable But vnto persons that be curious carnall without the spirit of Christ Predestination is most dangerous for by it the Deuill doth thrust them either into desperation or vncleane liuing By which sentence I hope the matter is at an end and the inference is plaine and necessary Vnto the holy Predestination is comfortable If Predestination be a desperate Doctrine vnto thee then art thou carnall and without grace Mr. Mountagu is able to apply specially what our Church hath decreed vniuersally therefore I leaue that to himselfe and all other whom it may concerne contenting my selfe with a bare relation of our Churches iudgement He writeth further thus Our Church in the point of Predestination hath not determined specially Appeale page 59. of when how wherefore or whom Gagge page 179. I answer this sentence tends to the same purpose or nothing that the former did viz. to disswade from all search after the nature of Predestination If a man did not care what he said he might sort well with Mr. Mountagu there is no vntruth so apparent but some man dares aduenture to auouch it there is hardly a falshood to bee found more apparent then this sentence of his and thus I shew it Our
Church hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some out of mankinde before the Creation of his will by his secret Councell As the Reader may see in the 17. Article and I haue shewed no. 5. 6. If our Church hath not determined thus and all hers ought to follow her example then Master Mountagu is much to blame For He hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some of mankinde being in perdition finall grace 1 willing them saluation 2 prouiding a Mediator 3 taking them out which layd hold of him As the reader may finde plainely laid downe in the former part of this Chap. no 3. 4. 14. 15. His choyce was ill that bringeth falshood for truth against himselfe and such is his condition in this place Now for as much as hee cannot discourage you by the force of these arguments therefore hee doth summon vnto the disputation in these words I must confesse my dissent thorough and sincere in no one point more then in this their Doctrine of Predestination Appeale page 60. I answer the Dice are now cast Caesar must be all or nothing the combat is offered to all commers the Gantlet is cast downe take it vp who dares But let him know he must proue his owne Predestination or leaue the field The first weapon he appeares withall is made of this fashion God is not the Author of sinne or death Appeale page 64. This weapon is strengthened with some authorities of Scriptures and Fathers from that place to page 69. But this weapon serueth not for this battell The question is whether first God found the Predestinate in perdition secondly whether Predestination be with relation vnto finall grace thirdly whether Predestination doth not appoint to giue grace for so you teach and these we deny But whether God be the Author of sinne and death is not thought vpon at this time Those three you must proue or say nothing for them you haue offered no proofe It is a safe war where there is no enemy and a cowardly attempter that refuseth the field where the enemie abideth It may be he will say the refutation of this sentence doth refute the latter branch of Caluins opinion of Predestination propounded page 50. and reiected page 60. because this sentence followes thereupon p. 54. I answer this helpes not the matter for the question now on foot is whether Gods decree to saue Peter be absolute and doth proceed from Gods will onely page 53. which is denied by your selfe the Church of England as you pretend the Lutherans and Arminians Against Caluin and the Synode of Dort p. 38. 53. 56. There is not a word of that second branch which concerneth reprobation obiected against you but it is foysted in by your selfe onely and that vpon good reason too for you knew full well that no man would defend this but euery man could defend that against you It was good policy to vndertake to proue a confessed truth for so you went with the streame and to bee silent in the prouing of a manifest falshood for then you had beene found guilty You tell vs your resolution this way in these words I neuer held it wisedome to tire my selfe with haling and tugging vp against the streame when with ease enough I might and with better discretion should sayle with the flood Appeale p. 12. Now although the case had beene as you pretend yet you had beene abundantly faulty for disputing against one branch when there was two in the question and for opposing a consequent letting passe the antecedent and consequence which is indeed to deny the conclusion when you durst not meddle with the premisses Hee keepes the field still and presenteth himselfe in this manner The Church of Geneua dissenteth from the priuate opinions of Caluin and Beza Appeale p. 71. I answer by priuate opinion of Caluin hee must meane this of Predestination and from it hee must conclude Therefore his Doctrine of Predestination is not true Otherwise he misses the present businesse That being supposed he commeth on the backe where hee ought to come vnto the face of his enemie hee ought to proue that his Doctrine is true not disproue ours but be it as he will if you aske him how hee doth know that the Church of Geneua doth so dissent hee doth answer Deodate did tell him so If you doubt of his testimony he tels you he is a Minister and a Professor in that Church and sent to the Synode from his Country well let him goe for a witnesse without exception the chiefest doubt is how it may appeare Deodate did say so Hee putteth that out of doubt also by auouching he told him so euen Mr. Mountagu being the man that Deodate was withall at Eaton which proofe cannot be auoided for hee should neuer haue had the company of Deodate in Eaton vnlesse he had beene such a man whose word is as true as steele yet neuerthelesse his word is of small authority for I haue found it deceitfull no 11. 12. therefore I dare not trust it but let vs yeeld him that Deodate did tell him so and that therefore our Predestination is not true Then hee must be conceiued thus to dispute Your Doctrine of Predestination is not true therefore mine is true A substantiall dispute and well worthy a rich Diuine and old learning mine is because yours is not he telleth vs of some that haue whirligigs in their heads Appeale page 81. I am sure he is one of them in this argument He ends not with this but goes on still with these words This sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter without any consideration had of his faith c. is a priuate fancy of some particular men Appeale page 58. neuer heard of till of late page 31. From hence he must inferre Therefore this sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter c. is not true I answer The Inference is naught truth in Diuinity standeth in a conformity vnto the diuine reuelation not vnto the sooner or later apprehension and report of men If you meane it is not reuealed then your termes of Priuate fancy and yesterdayes heare-say are but toyes for Children How dare you say our doctrine of Predestination is a priuate fancie and a Nouell opinion seeing King Iames of famous memory for learning and knowledge hath expresly auowed it in these words Predestination depends not vpon any qualities or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose As I haue shewed no 12. This testimonie doth giue vs sufficient odds aboue you for Our sentence hath royall confirmation and yours hath none herewith also I would content my selfe were it not that he vrgeth with great vehemency That This sentence aboue said is the doctrine of Nouellizing Puritans Appeale p. 60. For the remouing hereof and to giue full satisfaction in the point I will adde somewhat more thereunto and shew that the doctrine of Predestination which we defend is neither new nor the inuention of Nouellizing Puritanes And